Scenarios for the Dutch electricity
supply system
A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE DUTCH MINISTRY OF
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (MINISTERIE VAN ECONOMISCHE ZAKEN)
September 2015

© Frontier Economics Ltd, London.

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

i

Scenarios for the Dutch electricity
supply system
Executive Summary

1

1

Introduction

7

1.1

Background and scope of the project ......................................... 7

1.2

Approach.................................................................................... 9

1.3

Structure of the report .............................................................. 10

2

The current power market in the Netherlands

2.1

Power supply and demand....................................................... 13

2.2

Renewable energy sources in electricity supply ....................... 17

2.3

Grids and cross-border connection .......................................... 21

2.4

The current market design ....................................................... 24

3

Simulation of the future power market

3.1

The power market model ......................................................... 29

3.2

Base case assumptions ........................................................... 32

3.3

Power market outlook – Base Case results ............................. 46

3.4

Power market outlook – Sensitivity Analysis ............................ 64

4

Affordability of the electricity system

4.1

Costs of the electricity system.................................................. 95

4.2

Costs to final consumers ........................................................ 104

4.3

Economics of RES-E ............................................................. 111

5

Reliability of the electricity system

5.1

Performance of an ideal EOM ................................................ 128

5.2

Potential market imperfections ............................................... 132

5.3

Overall assessment of the future EOM design ....................... 149

6

Policy implications

6.1

Policy implications related to the Market Design .................... 155

6.2

Renewable energies and other technologies ......................... 157

13

29

95

127

155

Contents

ii

Frontier Economics | September 2015

References

161

Annexe 1: Methodology of estimating grid cost

165

Annexe 2: Power market modelling

169

Contents

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

iii

Scenarios for the Dutch electricity
supply system
Figure 1. Approach

10

Figure 2. Development of gross-electricity consumption, inland
production and net-imports
14
Figure 3. Electricity generation by energy commodity

15

Figure 4. Decomposition of CHP capacities (2013)

16

Figure 5. Electricity imports and exports

17

Figure 6. Development of RES-E

19

Figure 7. Market premiums and maximum full load hours that are
supported within the 6 stages of the SDE + (in 2014)
21
Figure 8. Location of distribution system operators in the Netherlands
22
Figure 9. Electricity transmission grid in the Netherlands

23

Figure 10. Electricity markets in the Netherlands

24

Figure 11. Geographical scope of the power market model

31

Figure 12. Fossil fuel price assumptions (Base Case)

33

Figure 13. CO2-price assumption (Base Case)

35

Figure 14. Assumed development of electricity consumption

36

Figure 15. Installed generation capacity (NL, 2015)

37

Figure 16. Combined heat and power generation and capacities

40

Figure 17. Assumed development of central and decentral CHP
capacity (conventional)
41
Figure 18. Development of renewable electricity supply

43

Figure 19. Development of Demand-Side Response*)

45

Figure 20. Assumed development of interconnection capacity (NL) 46
Figure 21. Development of operational generation capacity (NL)

48

Figure 22. Development of conventional generation capacities

50

Tables & Figures

iv

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Figure 23. Capacity balance (de-rated), Base Case

51

Figure 24. Development of power supply in the Netherlands

52

Figure 25. Development of power generation in Germany (Base Case)
56
Figure 26. Power flows to/from the Netherlands

57

Figure 27. De-rated*) DSR capacity

58

Figure 28. Power prices (yearly average, NL)

60

Figure 29. Price duration curve (NL)

61

Figure 30. Price volatility and daily price structure

62

Figure 31. Price development in CWE

64

Figure 32. CO2-price assumption sensitivity 1a “low CO2-prices”

67

Figure 33. Sensitivity 1a: Impact on capacity (NL)

68

Figure 34. Sensitivity 1a: Impact on power generation (NL)

69

Figure 35. Sensitivity 1a: Impact on power prices (NL)

70

Figure 36. CO2-price assumption sensitivity 1b “high CO2-prices”

71

Figure 37. Sensitivity 1b: Impact on capacity (NL)

72

Figure 38. Sensitivity 1b: Impact on power generation (NL)

73

Figure 39. Sensitivity 1b: Impact on power prices (NL)

74

Figure 40. Sensitivity 2 “High fuel prices”

75

Figure 41. Exemplary LRMC calculation “High fuel prices”

76

Figure 42. Sensitivity 2: Impact on power generation (NL)

77

Figure 43. Sensitivity 2: Impact on power prices (NL)

78

Figure 44. Development of installed capacity (RES-E) Sensitivity 3 79
Figure 45. Sensitivity 3: Impact on capacity (NL)

80

Figure 46. Sensitivity 3: Impact on power generation (NL)

81

Figure 47. Capacity balance (de-rated), Sensitivity 3

82

Figure 48. Sensitivity 3: Impact on power prices (NL)

83

Figure 49. Definition of CRM capacity requirements (Sensitivity 4)

85

Figure 50. Sensitivity 4: Impact on installed capacity (NL)

87

Tables & Figures

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

v

Figure 51. De-rated capacity balance (NL), Sensitivity 4

88

Figure 52. Sensitivity 4: Impact on power generation (NL)

89

Figure 53. Development of DSR investment potential (de-rated
capacity, excl. existing capacities)
91
Figure 54. Sensitiviy 5 – impact on DSR investments*) (NL)

92

Figure 55. Sensitivity 5: Impact on price volatility (NL)

93

Figure 56. Costs of electricity generation (Base Case)

98

Figure 57. Range of grid costs per MW installed RES-E capacity

99

Figure 58. Total grid costs (Base Case), NPV (2015-2039)

100

Figure 59. System costs, Base Case

102

Figure 60. Sensitivity impact on total system costs in the Netherlands
104
Figure 61. Costs to final consumers in the Netherlands, Base Case 107
Figure 62. Impact of the sensitivities on the costs to final consumers
109
Figure 63. Market values of intermittent RES-E

113

Figure 64. Revenues of intermittent RES-E (Base Case)

114

Figure 65. Comparison of revenues (all cases)

115

Figure 66. Calculation of levelised cost of electricity (LCOE)

118

Figure 67. Development of LCOE

119

Figure 68. Alternative development of LCOE

120

Figure 69. Profitability of intermittent RES-E

121

Figure 70. Benefits of net-metering (case 1 “Renewable support”) 124
Figure 71. Benefits of
remuneration”)

net-metering (case 2 “market based
124

Figure 72. Infra-marginal rents

130

Figure 73. Scarcity rents in an EOM

131

Figure 74. External effects in EOMs

141

Figure 75. Conclusion on reliability of the Dutch electricity system 153

Tables & Figures

vi

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Figure 76. Methodology to obtain estimates of total required grid
investment in the Netherlands from BMWi study
166
Figure 77. Methodology to obtain estimates from ECN meta-study 167
Figure 78. Electricity demand (model-region)

170

Figure 79. Average of import/export capacity (Europe)

171

Figure 80. Generation capacity and power generation in Germany
(Base Case)
174
Figure 81. Generation capacity and power generation in France (Base
Case)
175
Figure 82. Generation capacity and power generation in Belgium
(Base Case)
176
Figure 83. Generation capacity and power generation in Austria (Base
Case)
177
Figure 84. Assumed development of generation capacity (IT)

178

Figure 85. Assumed development of generation capacity (CH)

178

Figure 86. Assumed development of generation capacity (DK)

179

Figure 87. Assumed development of generation capacity (CZ)

179

Figure 88. Assumed development of generation capacity (PL)

180

Figure 89. Impact on power generation, all regions (1a “low CO2prices”)
180
Figure 90. Impact on power generation, all regions (1b “high CO2prices”)
181
Figure 91. Impact on power generation, all regions (2 “High fuel
prices”)
181
Figure 92. Impact on power generation, all regions (3 “Slow growth of
wind power”)
182
Figure 93. Impact on power generation, all regions (4 “increased
foreign capacity”)
182
Figure 94. Impact on power generation, all regions (5 “Higher DSR
potential”)
183
Figure 95. Power Exchange NL – Sensitivity 1a “low CO2-prices” 183
Figure 96. Power Exchange NL – Sensitivity 1b “high CO2-prices” 184

Tables & Figures

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

Figure 97. Power Exchange NL – Sensitivity 2 “high fuel prices”

vii

184

Figure 98. Power Exchange NL – Sensitivity 3 “Slow growth of wind
power”
185
Figure 99. Power Exchange NL – Sensitivity 4 “Increased foreign
capacity”
185
Figure 100. Power Exchange NL – Sensitivity 5 “Higher DSR potential”
186

Table 1. Investment options in the power market model *)

39

Table 2. Pairwise correlation of hourly in-feed and hourly electricity
price*)
112
Table 3. Assumed RES-E investment costs

117

Table 4. Required grid capital expenditure in per €/MW of electricity
from a renewable source
167
Table 5. Assumed overnight investment costs

172

Table 6. Other costs elements

173

Table 7. Capacity credits for CRM supply

187

Tables & Figures

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

1

Executive Summary
The Dutch and other European electricity markets are experiencing fundamental
changes. The policy initiatives associated with Europe’s green energy transition
have significantly influenced the outlook of the whole energy system. First and
foremost, power generation from intermittent renewable energy sources as wind
or solar power (RES-E) has increased rapidly over the last decade. This
development creates challenges for the integration of RES-E into the power
system and for the costs for building up the RES-E stock, strengthening grids
and keeping back-up capacities.
In addition, market-participants in the Netherlands and in other European
countries are discussing whether today’s market design that relies on the
principles of the energy-only market (EOM), i.e. power generation is
remunerated through energy-based payments (€/MWh),1 is able to guarantee
security of supply. Or whether capacity remuneration mechanisms (CRM) that
offer remuneration based on capacity payments (€/MW) are required. Some EU
member states have decided to introduce or have already introduced CRMs (e.g.
France or Great Britain) while other member states, as for example Germany or
the Netherlands, have not decided on the introduction of such a mechanism.
At the same time, European power markets become increasingly interconnected
and, especially in Central-Western Europe (CWE), national policies also affect
the markets in neighbouring countries.
In this report, we analyse the long-term effects of recent and future power
market developments on the reliability and affordability of the electricity system
in the Netherlands. Furthermore, we to what extent the current market model as
a so-called EOM is able to ensure an affordable and sufficiently reliable electricity
supply. Therefore, we analyse under which conditions the market offers
sufficient stimulus measures for investments in generation capacity, flexibility and
system facilities.
Dutch electricity market well positioned to cope with future challenges
Based on our quantitative and qualitative analysis, we conclude that the Dutch
electricity system is well positioned to cope with increasing shares of intermittent
renewable energy sources.

1

Today’s electricity market is in reality not an “Energy-only-market”. It incorporates substantial and
important capacity elements such as contracting of reserve power by the grid operator or back-up
contracts between power generators, retailers etc. However, the current market framework is
nevertheless often called “EOM” in the public domain – we will stick to this terminology in this
report.

Executive Summary

2





Frontier Economics | September 2015

Short-term overcapacities in the conventional power plant park – As a
result of a dip in power demand and increasing subsidised in-feed of
renewable energy sources in Europe, the economics of conventional thermal
power generation have deteriorated. Wholesale prices for power will remain
low at around 40 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh in the short-term. This
development has led to final or temporary retirement of thermal power plant
capacity in the Netherlands and elsewhere. The consolidation is a result of
changing market conditions and is not signalling any market failure.
Therefore, currently low wholesale power market prices are no immediate
reason for political interventions. In the medium-term, namely after the
nuclear phase-out in Germany (2022), we expect that the supply-demand
balance in the market tightens and price signals are provided to re-activate
mothballed capacities. Consequently, modelled power prices in 2023 rise by
~20% to above 50 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh in the Netherlands.
Market able to integrate increasing share of intermittent renewable
energy sources – The share of renewable energy in electricity supply
significantly increase in our analysis from around 12% today to around 50%
in 2035. The majority of renewable energy will come from intermittent
energy sources, i.e. wind and solar power. These intermittent energy sources
require a power system that is sufficiently flexible to integrate the in-feed and
that provides back-up in periods of low availability of these resources. Based
on our judgement, the Dutch electricity system is well positioned to integrate
high amounts of RES-E because



flexible gas-plants (including CHP), that can ramp up and down with
short lead time, represent the majority of the conventional power plant
park;



internal congestions of the transmission grid is comparably low; and



sufficient interconnection capacities to neighbouring countries are
available that allow for international efficiency gains.

Nevertheless, Dutch politics should not rule out new technological options
such as new storage technologies, even if our analysis indicates that those
technologies are not necessarily required before 2035.



Dutch power market well designed to ensure security of supply – The
current market design in the Netherlands is able to minimise the risk to
security of supply that is arising from potential market imperfections. For
example, the possibility of external effects in power supply is reduced to a
minimum as all market participants, including renewable energy sources,
bear balancing responsibility and imbalance prices are set with regard to

Executive Summary

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

3

marginal costs of regulating power. Remaining market risks can be borne by
investors and do not need any political intervention.2
Possible risks for investors arising from changes to the market framework,
i.e. from political intervention, should be minimised. For example, no direct
or indirect caps on electricity prices should be introduced even in periods
when prices get more volatile and spiky. Climate policy in the power sector
should be embedded in the EU ETS and unforeseeable ad hoc decisions in
the national context deviating from the long term plan should be avoided.
Furthermore, uncertainty about the future development of the electricity
system could be managed by agreeing on a binding long-term framework
(e.g. for 2030 and beyond) for renewable support and targets in an early
stage (e.g. 5-10 years ahead). This framework should also address potential
distortions between individual investment incentives and system inefficiency
arising from implicit subsidies for decentral generation.
Security of supply levels appear to be robust
Our sensitivity analysis suggests that, even under changing market conditions, the
supply-demand balance in the Netherlands and a high level of security of supply
can be maintained.







2

Changing fuel prices affect costs of generation but not SoS – The
achieved level of security of supply does not rely on certain assumptions
regarding the development of fuel prices or CO2-prices. Our analysis shows
that altering these assumptions results in a changing power plant dispatch
but not necessarily in changing capacity provision.
Less renewable in-feed than expected could be compensated by
existing capacities and imports – No threat to security of supply arises
from a variation in the growth of renewable energy sources. For example, a
growth path below the current political target for 2023 can be compensated
by, for example, gas-fired power plants and especially by imports from
neighbouring countries.
Capacity markets in Europe affect the Dutch power market but do not
represent a threat to security of supply if designed effectively – The
level of available generation capacity in the Netherlands is affected by the
definition of capacity requirements in neighbouring capacity mechanisms.
Security of supply in the Netherlands, however, is not significantly affected
as sufficient import capacities are available to transfer electricity to the

In addition, the capacity reserve “Vang-net” could be activated in the case of unforeseen capacity
shortage and reduces the risk of external effects further.

Executive Summary

4

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Netherlands in case available domestic generation capacity is scarce in
certain situations. However, it has to be ensured that electricity is traded and
exchanged in an effective and efficient way between EU member states.
Costs of the energy system especially driven by fuel prices and RES-E
Costs of the electricity system will increase in the future. Our analysis shows that
the increase in renewable energy sources and the associated investments
represent the biggest driver of system costs. Additionally, expected higher fuel
and CO2-prices increase the costs of remaining conventional generation in the
medium and long term.





Costs of increasing renewable energy sources with significant share of
system costs – The costs of increasing the share of renewable energy
sources in the electricity system, i.e. the investment costs and the costs to
integrate renewables into the power grid, represent a high share in the costs
of electricity generation.
Increasing costs to final consumers – Cost to final consumers, i.e. costs
for electricity supply and additional support of renewable energy sources and
required grid-enforcement to integrate RES-E will increase by 25% from
2015 to 2035.
Variable costs of generation have the highest leverage on consumer bills, e.g.
higher fuel prices (~40%) increase consumer cost by 6.8% (from 20152035). Furthermore, significant cost savings are possible if the envisaged
growth of renewable energy sources (especially wind-offshore) is postponed
to later years when higher learning effects are realised (-6% from 2015-2035).
However, this might mean that the Netherlands has to invest more in other
sectors such as the transport sector or to purchase green power abroad in
order to meet the current (16% RES share in primary energy consumption in
2023) or any future renewable targets. These costs are not included in our
calculations.



Significant cost savings for RES-E required for achieving grid-parity –
Intermittent renewable energy sources, i.e. wind-onshore/offshore and solar
PV are unlikely to cover their costs based on market revenues until 2035.
Depending on the assumed cost development and the technology, there
remains a financing gap of 5-22 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh in 2035 (Base Case).
Therefore, additional cost savings or higher power prices are required for
RES-E to achieve grid-parity.

Flexibility as an important element in the future electricity system
Due to the increasing share of intermittent RES-, the flexibility of the electricity
system is an important element of the energy transition. However, as of today,

Executive Summary

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

5

there is substantial flexibility available in the Dutch power market due to flexible
gas-fired power plant capacity, flexibility in CHP plants and very substantial
cross-border interconnections. Therefore, no immediate action is required to
increase flexibility in the short and medium term in the Dutch power system.
In the long term, additional flexibility options such as demand-side-response
(DSR) can be further developed. Due to the envisaged Smart Meter roll-out
programme in the Netherlands, there will be substantial potential for developing
DSR. Clear mechanisms and rules are required to coordinate the use of these
decentralised flexibility options for alleviating grid constraints (in particular in the
distribution grid) on the one hand side, and for balancing the power system (e.g.
to balance fluctuating wind and PV on the system level) on the other hand side.
Furthermore, taxes and levies could be designed in a way that electricity is
especially used in periods with substantial power generation from renewable
sources (high wind, high sun periods).
New power storage technologies such as Compressed-Air-Energy-Storage
(CAES) can be further developed. Our modelling does not indicate a significant
need to deploy these rather costly technologies on a large scale in the analysed
time frame (until 2035). However, developing these technologies in the context
of Research and Development (R&D) can offer further flexibility options in the
more distant future when even higher shares of power supply may be generated
by RES-E.
Integration of internal energy market and harmonisation of national
frameworks
Over the past decades, power markets in Europe have become highly
interconnected and the need to coordinate national policies has significantly
increased in order to reduce market distortions between countries. The
Netherlands are characterised as a relatively small country with high
interconnection capacities to other member states in Central Western Europe. In
order to reduce the risk of market distortions arising from national policies
elsewhere, the Netherlands should maintain their engagement in European and
regional discussion and coordination groups like the Pentalateral Energy Forum3
and on the EU-level. Increased ambitions towards a harmonised energy policy
framework on European level, especially regarding the support of renewable
energy sources and the introduction of capacity remuneration mechanisms, could
be addressed e.g. in the course of the Dutch EU Presidency in 2016.

3

The Pentalateral Energy Forum consists of Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands and Switzerland aims at increasing market coupling and security of supply in Central
Western Europe, .e.g. through regular regional generation adequacy assessments.

Executive Summary

6





Frontier Economics | September 2015

Increasing integration of CWE region – With increasing interconnection
capacity especially to Germany, market integration will increase in the
medium-term and prices will almost perfectly integrate in the period 20232030.4
International spill-over effects from CRM possible – Capacity built
under CRMs in neighbouring countries may have an impact on the level of
plant capacity in the Netherlands. If, for example, capacity requirements in
the French and Belgian CRM do not take the contribution of international
interconnections into account, overcapacities in the market region may arise
with a negative effect on power generators in the Netherlands. These
additional capacities could lead to lower revenues of domestic power
generators and therefore to less generation capacity within the Netherlands.
Therefore, the Netherlands should aim for an adequate definition of capacity
requirements in foreign CRMs. Furthermore, cross-border participation in
foreign CRMs should be possible, either via participation of generators in
neighbouring countries or by participation of interconnectors.



4

Effective internalisation of carbon externality required – Our analysis
shows that higher fuel costs or CO2-prices increase profitability of
renewables and reduce the costs of financing the RES-E growth. Therefore,
the Netherlands should aim at strengthening the EU ETS as the central
instrument of climate change in Europe.

Our modelling shows a price difference between DE-NL of less than 0.01 €/MWh in more than
90% of the hours.

Executive Summary

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

1

7

Introduction
The electricity systems in the Netherlands and across Europe are in a period of
transition: Due to the sustainability policy in the EU and its member states, the
share of intermittent renewable energy sources such as wind and solar is steadily
increasing. At the same time, electricity demand and CO2 prices across Europe
are weaker than expected some years ago. Furthermore, physical cross-border
interconnection of electricity systems and the integration of power markets are
strengthening, leading to stronger impacts of energy policies of neighbouring
countries on domestic markets in Europe.
Given these developments, the Ministry of Economic Affairs (MinEZ) wants to
understand what long-term effects recent developments may have on the
reliability and affordability of the electricity system in the Netherlands. In this
context, the ministry commissioned this study to Frontier Economics to analyse
the future prospects of the Dutch electricity system regarding affordability and
reliability and the potential needs to revise the current market design in the
Netherlands to achieve a reliable, affordable and environmental friendly
electricity supply system.
In the following, we describe in more detail

1.1



The background and scope of the study (section 1.1);



The approach of the analyses (section 1.2); and



The structure of the report (section 1.3).

Background and scope of the project
The Dutch and European electricity markets are experiencing fundamental
changes:





Politically driven energy transition: Europe’s green energy transition has
implications for the whole energy system: The share of intermittent energy
sources such as solar and wind power generation are rapidly increasingly in
the Netherlands as well as in neighbouring countries. Some countries such as
Germany and Switzerland plan to step out of nuclear power generation. At
the same time, new technologies such as smart grids, demand response and
new storage technologies emerge.
Developments on fuel and CO2 markets: Changes in the markets for gas
(European market) and coal (global market) have led to relatively high
natural gas prices compared to coal in Europe. At the same time, CO2 prices
turned out to be lower than expected in recent years. This, in combination
with the massive extension of power generation from renewable sources, has

Introduction

8

Frontier Economics | September 2015

led very low utilisation of gas-fired power plants, and to relatively weak
profitability for both, gas and coal fired power stations. Due to these effects,
major players in the European electricity market face significant commercial
losses in the power generation business.



European market and system integration: The Western European
electricity market is becoming increasingly integrated: National policies and
regulations have an increasing impact on neighbouring countries and the
electricity market in the regions.

At the same time, market participants in the Netherklands as well as in other
European countries discuss whether so-called capacity reliability or remuneration
mechanisms (CRMs) should be implemented to guarantee security of supply in
the electricity sector. The electricity market design in the Netherlands and most
of its neighbouring countries is so far based on the principle of an “energy-only
market” (EOM). In an EOM, investments for electricity production are primarily
financed through energy-based prices (in €/MWh), which incorporate an implicit
payment for available capacity.5 In this context, various market stakeholders
wonder whether a market design based on the EOM principle generates
sufficient incentives to ensure mid- and long-term security of electricity supply.
Some stakeholders have suggested the introduction of a CRM. Through a policial
intervention, a CRM would induce explicit capacity payments (e.g. in €/MW per
year) that would incentivise additional capacity and thus security of supply. Some
of the Dutch’s neighbouring countries, for instance Belgium, France or Great
Britain, are currently introducing CRMs.
Given this background, the Ministry of Economic Affairs has commissioned the
study to analyse,

5



what impact these developments have on the reliability and affordability
of the electricity system in the long term;



if and under what conditions the current market model for the
electricity market is sufficiently able to ensure an affordable and reliable
energy supply; and



the conditions for which the current market model offers sufficient
stimulus measures for economic operators to invest in production
capacity, flexibility and system facilities.

Today’s electricity market is in reality not an “Energy-only-market”. It incorporates substantial and
important capacity elements such as contracting of reserve power by the grid operator or back-up
contracts between power generators, retailers etc. However, the current market framework is
nevertheless often called “EOM” in the public domain – we will stick to this terminology in this
report.

Introduction

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

1.2

9

Approach
Our analysis is based on three main elements:







Quantitative power market analysis – We use our European power
market model to analyse the future development of the Dutch electricity
sector. Based on one central scenario, which represents the current political
framework in the Netherlands and includes the most likely development of
the market from our point of view, we analyse the effect of different market
factors on (among other things)



Investment and divestment decisions in the Netherlands;



Development of power generation and power exchange with
neighbouring countries; and



Development of power prices;

Policy analysis – Based on the results obtained in the power market
modelling, we conduct additional quantitative and qualitative analysis
regarding the



affordability of the system, i.e. the development of total system cost;
the economics of intermittent or variable renewable energy sources; and
the costs of the electricity system to final consumers; and



Reliability of the system, i.e. we analyse the performance of the current
(EOM) market design regarding security of supply and address possible
market imperfections which may distort the market; in this context, we
also discuss potential measures to enhance the reliability of the system.

Conclusions and policy initiatives – Based on the outcome of the analysis
above, we assess which additional policy initiatives could be taken in order
to enhance the affordability and reliability of the electricity system.

Figure 1 illustrates our approach.

Introduction

10

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Figure 1. Approach
Scenario analysis and modelling
Definition of
scenarios /
sensitivities

Policy analysis

Gathering of
data

Modelling

Analysing
affordability

Analysing
reliability

Output analysis

Conclusion and potential policy initiatives

Source: Frontier

1.3

Structure of the report
The report is structured as follows:






Chapter 1 “Introduction” – We describe the background of the study and
the approach of the analysis.
Chapter 2 “The current power market in the Netherlands” – As the
starting point of our analyses, we describe the current status of the power
market in the Netherlands regarding



The historic development of power supply and demand;



The development of renewable energy sources in electricity supply;



The electricity grid and interconnection capacities; and



The current market design of the electricity system.

Chapter 3 “Simulation of the future power market” – We explain the
results of our quantitative power market analysis in the following steps:



Description of the European power market model;



Assumptions and results of the Base Case scenario; and



Definition and analysis of relevant sensitivities.

Introduction

September 2015 | Frontier Economics







11

Chapter 4 “Affordability of the electricity system” – We summarise the
results of the affordability analysis regarding



The costs of the electricity system;



The costs to final consumers; and



The economics of intermittent renewable electricity supply.

Chapter 5 “Reliability of the electricity system” – We analyse the
reliability of the electricity system based on



The performance of an ideal EOM;



An assessment of the potential market imperfections; and



An overall assessment of the future EOM design.

Chapter 6 “Policy implications” – We derive implication regarding the
policy design related to



The market design of the electricity system; and



Renewable energies and other technologies.

Introduction

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

2

13

The current power market in the
Netherlands
This section aims at setting the framework for the power market analysis in the
chapters to follow. It provides a brief overview of the key characteristics of the
Dutch power market. In the following, we describe

2.1



the current status of power generation and supply in the Netherlands
based on historical data (section 2.1);



the development of renewable energy sources in electricity supply
(section 2.2);



the main characteristics of the transmission and distribution networks
including interconnection capacity to neighbouring countries (section
2.3); and



the key market design elements of the Dutch power market (section
2.4).

Power supply and demand
In this section, we provide an overview of the Dutch power sector, focussing on

2.1.1



the development of power demand (section 2.1.1); and



the development of power supply (section 2.1.2);

Development of power demand in the Netherlands
Electricity consumption in the Netherlands increased from 2000 until 2008 by an
average growth rate of 1.7 % (year-on-year). Historically, electricity consumption
has been closely linked to the development of gross domestic product (GDP) of
the Netherlands, which has increased on average by 2% (year-on-year) at the
same time.
The drop in industrial production and a corresponding significant decrease in
GDP (by 3.3%) following the financial and economic crises have reduced
electricity consumption by 4.6% from 2008 to 2009. After 2009, electricity
consumption and GDP have recovered slightly but experienced negative growth
rates in the years 2012 and 2013. Between 2009 and 2013, electricity demand
remains around ca. 120 TWh per year.
Figure 2 shows the development of electricity consumption from 2000 to 2013.

The current power market in the Netherlands

14

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Figure 2. Development of gross-electricity consumption, inland production and netimports
Inland production

Net-imports

Total electricity consumption

140

120
108

112

112

114

117

119

120

123

124
118

121

122

120

119

100

TWh

80

60

40

20

0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Source: Frontier based on CBS statline

2.1.2

Development of power supply
The Dutch power plant park is characterised by a high share of fossil fuel based
generation units. Due to the high availability of natural gas resources in the
northern part of the Netherlands and under the North-Sea, the majority of
Dutch power plants are gas-fired.6 Hard coal represents that second largest
energy source for electricity generation, driven by the geographical proximity to
major European coal import ports (Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Antwerp, ARA). In
addition, a significant share of power is produced in combined-heat and power
plants (CHP). Due to this supply mix dominated by fossil fuels with high variable
costs, the Netherlands have in the past acted as net-importer of power, i.e.
imported less expensive power from abroad than exported to neighbouring
countries:



6

High share of fossil fuel based generation – Gas-fired power generation
has accounted for more than 50% of total power generation in the
Netherlands in the past decade - with some years reaching a share of more
than 60%. Approximately 25% of total inland electricity supply is produced
in hard coal power plants. These numbers include power generation from
combined-heat and power (CHP) plants (see below). Nuclear energy
accounts for 4% in power generation.
The largest share of natural gas production is consumed within the Netherlands and in the power
sector, less than 40% of production is exported to other European countries. See IEA (2014a).

The current power market in the Netherlands

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

15

Increasing levels of renewable energy sources in electricity generation
(RES-E) – The Netherlands exhibit a comparably low share of renewable
energy7 in electricity generation. However, the last decade has seen a
constant increase of RES-E generation, mainly driven by an increase of
power generation from wind energy and biomass. The RES-E share reached
to 10.6% in 2012.
Figure 3 shows the development of inland electricity supply from 2000 until
2013.
Figure 3. Electricity generation by energy commodity
140
Wind energy
120

Solar energy
Other energy
commodities

100

TWh

Hydro power
80
Biomass
60

Other fossil fuels
Natural gas

40
Hard coal
20

Nuclear energy
Fuel oil

2013*

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

0

Source: Frontier based on CBS statline
* provisional figure



Important role of combined-heat and power generation – Combined
heat and power plants represent around 40% of installed capacity and
account for almost 50% in inland electricity generation. The majority of
CHP plants are gas-fired, only a small share is fired with hard coal or
biomass.8 The CHP installations can be differentiated into



Large central plants, mainly for district heating and industrial heat
production; and



Small decentral CHP plants, mainly for agriculture, horticulture and
smaller industry facilities.

7

Electricity generation based on wind energy, solar PV, hydro power and biomass.

8

Around 30-50% of total biomass generation arises from co-firing in coal plants.

The current power market in the Netherlands

16

Frontier Economics | September 2015

The majority of CHP plants (around 60%) can be characterised as decentral
power generation capacity (see Figure 4).
Figure 4. Decomposition of CHP capacities (2013)

3.000 MWe
Central
capacity
5.068 MWe

Decentralized
capacity
7.591 MWe

1.984 MWe
695 MWe
414 MWe

1.498 MWe
Agriculture and horticulture
Chemistry

Waste incineration
Food and beverage
Other

Source: Frontier based on CBS statline



Netherlands as a historic net-importer of electricity – As described
above, the Dutch power system is characterised by a high share of fossil
fuels in power generation which faced relatively high variable fuel costs
during the past decade (especially natural gas). Consequently, power prices in
the Netherlands have been higher than in neighbouring countries which rely
on power generation technologies with lower variable costs (e.g. Germany
with large shares of renewables and low-cost lignite generation). Therefore,
the Netherlands have recently shown a significant share of electricity
imports, mainly from Germany (see Figure 5).

The current power market in the Netherlands

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

17

Figure 5. Electricity imports and exports
40
NL > GB
30
NL > NO
NL > BE

TWh

20

NL > DE
10

GB > NL

NO > NL
0
BE > NL
-10

DE > NL
Net-imports

-20
2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Source: Frontier based on ENTSO-E

2.2

Renewable energy sources in electricity supply
In this section, we provide additional information on the development of
renewable energy in the Dutch electricity system. The section is structured as
follows:

2.2.1



Political framework and renewable energy policies (section 2.2.1);



Historic development of RES-E (section 2.2.2); and



The current renewable support scheme (section 2.2.3).

Political framework for renewable energy sources
The Netherlands have set the ambitious target to reduce their emission from CO2
by 80-95% in 2050 compared to 1990 levels. The Climate Letter 2050 formulated
by the “Rutte” government in 2011 has identified cornerstones of the transition
towards a low-carbon economy:



CO2- free electricity supply;



Sustainable use of biomass;



Energy savings; and



Introduction of CCS technologies.

The current power market in the Netherlands

18

Frontier Economics | September 2015

The consecutive “Rutte-Asscher”-government has set out the target to achieve a
share of renewable energy in the economy of 16% in 2020.9 This target has been
revised in the Energieakkoord voor duurzame groei (hereafter Energy Agreement)
which was adopted in September 201310. The Energy Agreement sets out the
ultimate goal of achieving a renewable share of gross energy consumption of
14% in 2020 and 16% in 2023, compared to 4.4% in 2012. There are no explicit
targets regarding the share of renewable energy in electricity supply but the
Energy Agreement includes several initiatives that affect the supply of electricity:



Wind-offshore: The Agreement foresees an increase of wind-offshore
installation to 4450 MW in 2023;



Wind-onshore: The Agreement foresees an increase of wind-offshore
installation to 6000 MW in 2023;



Co-firing of biomass: The Agreement sets an upper limit for biomass
co-firing in large coal combustion plants of 25 PJ; and



Closure of coal-fired generation units: The capacity of coal-fired
generation units built in the 1980s shall be reduced.11

The following sections describe the historic development of and the current
support scheme for RES-E.
2.2.2

Development of renewable energy sources in electricity supply
As shown in Figure 3, the electricity generation from renewable energy sources
(RES-E) has increased significantly since 2000. The largest sources of RES-E are
wind-onshore and biomass.





Increasing share of RES-E – The role of renewable energy sources in the
Dutch electricity supply has increased significantly in the past. In 2000, only
3% of total electricity consumption has been served by RES-E. The share
has more the tripled to 10.6% in 2012.
Highest growth rates for wind energy – Wind-onshore and offshore
represent the technologies with the highest growth of electricity generation.
The generation from wind-onshore increased from below 1 TWh in 2000 to
more than 4 TWh in 2012. This trend is expected to continue in the next
years. Wind-offshore represents a less mature technology, shows lower

9

Coalition agreement cabinet Rutte-Asscher: “Building Bridges” (2012).

10

SER (2013).

11

Three coal-fired generation units will close at the beginning of 2016, two additional units in mid2017.

The current power market in the Netherlands

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

19

growth rates but is expected to contribute significantly to electricity supply in
the future (see section 3.2.4).





Biomass largest source of renewable energy – Biofuels such as biomass,
biogas and waste represented the largest source of renewable electricity
supply in the past. The electricity generation from biofuels has more than
tripled from 2000 until 2012, with the highest increase from combined-heat
and power generation. Recently, power generation from biomass reached
almost 8 TWh/a.
Moderate increase in solar photovoltaic (PV) generation – Electricity
generation from solar photovoltaic installations has shown only a moderate
increase, especially at the beginning of this decade. From 2010 to 2012, the
generation has grown from 60 GWh to 250 GWh. However, solar PV power
generation is in absolute terms very minor as of today.

Figure 6. Development of RES-E
14

16%

12

14%

Wind-onshore

12%
10%

11%

9% 9%

Wind-offshore
10%

8

TWh

8%
6

6%

7%

8%

6%
6%

RES-E(%)

10

Solar energy

Hydro power

4%

4
3% 3%

4% 3%

4%

2

2%

0

Biomass

RES-E %

0%
2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

Source: Frontier based on CBS statline

2.2.3

Current renewable support scheme
In the Netherlands, the production of renewable energy is mainly supported via
the SDE+ (Stimulering Duurzame Energieproductie) scheme12. Under the
SDE+, renewable energy projects receive a feed-in premium for each renewable
kWh produced. The feed-in premium payment is comprised of the gap between

12

As additional instrument to promote RES-E deployment, reduced interest rates for investments into
renewable energies (except for biomass and biogas plants) are available.

The current power market in the Netherlands

20

Frontier Economics | September 2015

the market price of the energy produced and the cost price of the technology. If
the market price increases, the premium declines, and vice versa. Ultimately, no
subsidy is paid when the market price rise above the cost price and the premium
is capped when market prices fall below a threshold (2/3 of the long term energy
price).
Producers of renewable energy need to apply for support. The SDE + has a
yearly overall budget cap and plant operators applying for support are served on
a “first come – first serve” basis. Applications can be made during six stages per
period.13 With each stage the premium, which plant operators receive, increases.
In addition, for wind-onshore, the number of full-load hours for which the
support is granted, is lower in stages 3-6 than in stages 1 and 2.
The motivation behind the step-wise application process is to foster the
deployment of renewable energies with lowest costs while absorbing their rents.
Due to the overall cap of support payments, plant operators have an incentive to
apply for support during early stages (if possible) in order to be sure to be
granted support. In addition, the overall cap for support payments helps to
regulate the financial burden tax payer’s bear14.
If plant operators are successful with their application, they receive the premium
for 15 years (except for operators of biomass, biogas and sewage gas plants who
only receive support for 12 years). The premiums are paid from the date
onwards, when the plants start to operate. Operators are obliged to start
operation within 4 years after the support was granted (within 5 years for wind
offshore).
Figure 7 exemplarily shows the maximum basic premium for 5 technologies
within the 6 application stages in 2014. In addition, the fixed amount of full load
hours is shown. For wind-onshore, the depicted full load hours of 1960
corresponds to stages 3 to 6 (in stages 1-2, support is granted for 2800 full load
hours).

13

For example, in 2014, Stage 1 took place from April 1st to May 11th and Stage 6 from November 3rd
to December 18th.

14

Costs are covered by the State budget and are passed on to final consumers as levy on electricity
consumption. In 2014, the cap was 3.5 billion €.

The current power market in the Netherlands

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

21

Figure 7. Market premiums and maximum full load hours that are supported within
the 6 stages of the SDE + (in 2014)

Source: Frontier based on res-legal.eu

2.3

Grids and cross-border connection
This section provides an overview of the characteristics of the electricity
transmission and distribution grid and the interconnection that exists between
the electricity grid of the Netherlands and that of surrounding countries.
Following the introduction of the Wet Onafhankelijk Netbeheer (Law
Independent System Operations) in 2011 different entities are in charge of
generating electricity, operating the transmission and distribution grids, and
running the energy retail activities. This section considers only the transmission
and distribution systems and their operators.
The section outlines the current status of the system. Investments are considered
in more detail in section 4.1.

2.3.1

Distribution grid
In total, the Dutch distribution grid is over 325,000 kilometres long, and is
almost completely built by underground cables. The Dutch distribution grid
performs well on reliability and is improving further. Compared to averages over
the period between 2008 and 2012, in 2013 there were 10% less interruptions in
the high voltage net (110kV and 150kV) and 4% less interruptions in the middle

The current power market in the Netherlands

22

Frontier Economics | September 2015

voltage net (10kV). The average interruption per consumer has decreased by 12%
to 23.4 minutes/year15.
There are currently eight distribution system operators (DSOs) in the
Netherlands. All DSOs operate in separate geographical areas (see Figure 8).
The biggest DSO in the Netherlands is Liander, which operates the distribution
system for the provinces of North Holland, Flevoland, Friesland and Gelderland.
Liander is the distribution system operator for approximately 3 million
households.
The geographical spread of electricity and gas distribution networks does not
coincide perfectly, so some households do have different electricity and gas
distribution system operators.
Figure 8. Location of distribution system operators in the Netherlands

Source: www.energieleveranciers.nl, retrieved February 2015

2.3.2

Transmission grid
The transmission grid in the Netherlands is operated by TenneT TSO. The
company also operates a substantial part of the transmission grid in Germany.
TenneT manages networks with a voltage of 110 kV and above. The grid is
shown in Figure 9.

15 Source: Netbeheer Nederland, “Betrouwbaarheid van elektriciteitsnetten in Nederland: Resultaten 2013”,

The current power market in the Netherlands

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

23

Figure 9. Electricity transmission grid in the Netherlands

Source: TenneT, 2014

The Dutch transmission grid is strongly connected to the grids of the
surrounding countries. This allows for cross-border trading in electricity and
more effective allocation of international supply and demand. Currently, the
Netherlands is a net importer of electricity, and mainly imports “low cost”
electricity from Germany (see section 2.1.2).
An overview of the cross-border connections involving the Netherlands can be
found in section 3.2.6. Apart from interconnection with Belgium and Germany,
TenneT has also created interconnections with the transmission grids of Norway
and Great Britain.





The NorNED cable came into operation in May 2008 and is jointly owned
by TenneT and the Norwegian transmission system operator Statnett. This
connection allows Dutch market parties to import Norwegian renewable
hydropower. The connection can also be used to export electricity from the
Netherlands, so the connection has improved power trading and security of
supply both in the Netherlands and in Norway.
The BritNED cable came into operation in 2011 and is jointly owned by
the British transmission system operator National Grid and a subsidiary of
TenneT. The cable runs from the Isle of Grain in the UK to the Maasvlakte
in the Netherlands.

The future development of interconnection capacity is included in section 3.2.6

The current power market in the Netherlands

24

2.4

Frontier Economics | September 2015

The current market design
In the Netherlands, electricity can be traded on power exchanges, via bilateral
contracts or via brokers. Electricity trade takes place in several markets (shown in
Figure 10) that can be differentiated by the time, the trade takes place.
Figure 10. Electricity markets in the Netherlands

Source: Frontier economics.



Forward market – On Forward markets, obligations to physically deliver or
buy electricity (physical forward) or obligations for future payments
(financial future) are traded up to a few years ahead of actual delivery. These
trades are legally binding and do not depend on the availability of, for
instance, a power plant or a demand flexibility measure at the time of
delivery.
Many products are standardized – examples are base load products (delivery
in all hours of the agreed period) and peak load products (delivery from 8
a.m. to 8 p.m. on all week-days during the agreed period).
In addition, options that give the right to buy electricity for a pre-defined
price (Call-Option) or to deliver electricity at a fixed price (Put-Option) are
traded in forward markets. The seller of an option receives a premium for
offering the buyer flexibility. Standardised options are traded on power
exchanges. Other, more customised options are traded on a bilateral basis,
e.g., options that are used to hedge against the risk of a power plant outage
or an agreement between a supplier and end-consumers for a potential
restricted delivery (e.g. partial shut-down).

The current power market in the Netherlands

September 2015 | Frontier Economics





25

Day-ahead market – On day-ahead markets, buyers and suppliers of
electricity adapt their positions; buyers adapt their procurement portfolio
given more accurate load forecasts and producers optimize their delivery
obligations. Depending on their variable costs of electricity production and
the market price in each hour, they optimize between buying or producing
the electricity themselves (Make-or-buy-decision). For the Netherlands, the
Day-ahead market is organized by the power exchange APX. Important
market design elements are:



Bids for hourly contracts or block contracts can be submitted until
12:00 a.m. on the day before delivery.



Based on these bids, market clearing prices and quantities are calculated.
Technical price limits are – 500 €/MWh and +3000 €/MWh.



The Dutch day-ahead market is coupled with markets in northern,
western and southern Europe (“NWE-SWE market coupling”).
Therefore, cross-border trade is also taken into account within the
efficient determination of the day-ahead market price in the
Netherlands.

Intra-Day market – Final adjustment between the amount of electricity
procured and effective demand or between the amount of electricity
generation already sold and effective electricity generation takes place via
continuous trade on the intra-day market.
At the APX, hourly products and block orders can be traded up to 5
minutes ahead of delivery time. OTC trades, however, can even be
nominated ex post. The Dutch intraday market is coupled with Belgium and
the Nordic markets. Technical price limits are –100,000 and +100,000
€/MWh.



Balancing markets – Supply and demand has to be balanced at all times.
However, imbalances can occur, for instance because of unplanned power
plant outages or forecast errors of demand, wind or solar in-feed. To cope
with such imbalances at real-time, TenneT TSO uses regulating power.
All suppliers or consumers connected to the Dutch electricity network have
to have their electricity exchange with the grid covered by BalanceResponsible-Parties (BRP), that have to submit so-called E-Programmes to
the TSO TenneT the day before delivery. These E-Programmes include
information about how much electricity BRPs either plan to feed into the
grid or to take out of the grid within 15-minutes intervals on the next day.
Small consumers, such as households, do not bear programme responsibility
themselves. Suppliers selling electricity to small end-consumers are
responsible for organizing balance responsibility for them. Larger consumers

The current power market in the Netherlands

26

Frontier Economics | September 2015

and producers are obliged to either become a BRP or find a BRP to carry
balance responsibility for their grid connection on their behalf. This is a
commercial arrangement. Also renewable energies, in contrast, directly bear
programme responsibility in the Netherlands – unlike in many other
European countries. However, programme responsibility can also be
outsourced to other BRPs that are recognised by the TSO and make
nominations on behalf of market parties that originally bear programme
responsibility.
If parties deviate from their E-Programme (i.e., if they feed-in or consume
more or less electricity than planned), balancing energy has to be used to reestablish a balanced supply and demand in the system to the extent the
deviations do not net out. Costs for balancing energy are (partly) financed
via imbalance payments16; the BRPs, responsible for the imbalance (because
their in-feed or take-off does not correspond to their plans submitted via the
E-Programmes), have to pay imbalance payments. Thereby, BRPs have an
incentive to stick to their plans (e.g., by adjusting their positions on the
intraday market if they realize that their actual feed-in or take-off would
deviate from their plans).
Depending on technical characteristics, different reserve products can be
distinguished:



Primary reserve: Primary reserve is used automatically to stabilize
frequency disruptions within 30 seconds. For example, if thermal power
plants supply primary control energy, steam injection to the turbine
automatically reacts to grid frequency.
The Dutch TSO TenneT procures a part of the Dutch requirement for
primary control reserve in a joint (weekly) auction with the German
TSOs. In 2015, 67 MW will be procured in the Dutch-German auction
while the remaining 29 MW that are required will be procured via a
separate Dutch auction.17 Suppliers of primary control reserve receive a
capacity price only.



Secondary reserve: If the system balance in the Netherlands tends to
one direction (over- or under balanced), TenneT will call energy bid by
suppliers of secondary reserve. Secondary reserve may be procured
from market participants that can increase supply (or reduce demand) as
well as from providers than can decrease supply (or increase demand).

16

The difference between costs for purchasing regulating power (including contracting reserve
capacity) by the TSO on the one hand side and imbalance payments by the PRPs is born by
electricity consumers via the transmission tariff. This balance can be either positive or negative.

17

www.regelleistung.net

The current power market in the Netherlands

September 2015 | Frontier Economics



27

Tertiary reserve: If after 15 minutes, grid frequency has not been reestablished, tertiary reserve or minute reserve replaces secondary
reserve.

Tertiary and secondary reserve is procured by TenneT within the Dutch
regulating/reserve power system. TenneT contracts producers or consumers
via annual tenders that then are obliged to bid into the daily auctions for
regulating power (non-contracted capacity can still choose to bid into the
daily auctions but does not receive a capacity price). Bids are submitted for
periods of 15 minutes. The capacity price is a pay-as-bid price while energy
prices resulting from the daily auctions (for 15 minute periods) are uniform
marginal prices that differ by direction of the balancing measures (upward or
downward balancing). Furthermore, large producers and consumers (> 60
MW) are obligated to bid available capacity into the reserve power system,
while smaller market participant can choose whether they want to
participate.



Imbalance settlement – BRPs that have an imbalanced portfolio will be
settled against imbalance prices. If TenneT activates both, negative and
positive control reserves within a 15-minutes period, two imbalance prices
are set; one for upward and one for downward regulation. The two prices
are set equal to the marginal prices of the balancing actions. If TenneT only
takes balancing actions into one direction (only up- or down regulation)
there is a single price equal to the combined marginal price of all balancing
energy activated. In addition, an incentive component is applied that
depends on the system performance (and adjusted on a weekly basis). In
practice this component is usually zero.
A specific characteristic of the Dutch balance system is that TenneT
publishes the prices of activated balancing energy bids and system imbalance
positions close to real time and thereby promotes self-balancing (i.e., BRPs
get an incentive to support the TSO in correcting imbalances - “passive
contribution”18). Imbalance prices are limited to 100,000 €/MWh.

18

“Imbalance Management TenneT Analysis report”

The current power market in the Netherlands

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

3

29

Simulation of the future power market
In this section, we describe the results of our model-based analysis of the Dutch
power market. The section is structured as follows:

3.1



Description of the power market model (section 3.1);



Assumptions for the base case scenario (section 3.2);



Description and analysis of resulting base case power market trends
(section 3.3); and



Definition and analysis of the sensitivities (section 3.4).

The power market model
This section includes a description of the European power market model used in
this study. Our combined investment and dispatch model of the European power
market is based on a linear optimisation problem19. The model optimises the
hourly dispatch of the power plants as well as the development of installed
capacity based on representative hours and selected photo-years. It is formulated
in GAMS, and draws on extensive Excel databases for inputs and outputs. The
model has the following characteristics:





Objective function – The objective function is to minimize total costs20 of
the electricity supply in Europe. The model minimizes total costs subject to
the following constraints:



Energy supply and consumption must be balanced in every hour in
every regions;



Power exchange between modelled regions is limited by interconnection
capacity;



Technical and economic constraints for power plants, storages,
Demand-Side Response (DSR) as well as renewable energy sources.

Investment options – In order to meet future demand at the least cost, the
model can optimises the power plant park in the so-called “core-regions”21
of our model through either

19

The optimisation problem is solved with the commercial Solver CPLEX.

20

Total costs are minimized as net present value (NPV) today. This includes a discounting of future
costs, i.e. comparable to an investment appraisal where short-term profits and costs are treated with
higher time preference. We use an interest rate of 5% for the discounting of future costs and profits
as well as for the calculation of investment costs of different power plants.

Simulation of the future power market

30





Frontier Economics | September 2015



Investing in new capacities subject to technical and economic
parameters and availability different technological options;



Closing existing power plants in the case of overcapacity; or



Mothballing a plant and reactivating it at a later point in time in order to
save fixed operation and maintenance costs.

Temporal resolution – The model is an integrated investment- and
dispatch model. Therefore, the time frame for optimisation follows the
technical lifetime of power plants. The time horizon for our analysis is from
2015 until 2035 with an hourly resolution of 4032 representative hours per
photo-year.22
Geographical scope – Our model focusses on Central-Western Europe as
core-regions. Other neighbouring countries are included as non-core regions
or satellite regions. This differentiation allows to model the power plant park
of the core-region on a very detailed (unit-based) basis, but power exchange
with other regions that are modelled with lower granularity and level of
detail are at the same time included:



Core-regions: The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Austria and
France. The power plant park is modelled on a very detailed (unitbased) level, the dispatch of power plants and DSR as well as
investment or divestment decisions are taken endogenously (countries
coloured in red, Figure 11).



Other model regions: Great Britain, Denmark, Poland, Czech
Republic, Switzerland, Italy. The power plant park is modelled as
aggregated blocks. Capacity is set exogenously, i.e. investment and
divestment decisions are not optimised (countries coloured in dark blue,
Figure 11).



Satellite regions: Other adjacent regions - for example South-Eastern
Europe, the Noordpool region and Spain - are modelled as satellite
regions. Power can be traded with those regions based on an exogenous
price (countries coloured in light blue, Figure 11).

21

The core-regions of our model are the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Austria and France.

22

Analysed photo-years: 2015, 2020, 2023, 2030, 2035

Simulation of the future power market

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

31

Figure 11. Geographical scope of the power market model

Core-region
(investment and dispatch)
Other model regions
(dispatch)
Satellite regions
(merit order price)

Source: Frontier

Security of Supply and Loss-of-load
The hourly energy-balance defines that demand has to be in every hour and in
every region. Through system-cost-minimisation, the model derives the efficient
development of generation capacities and power plant dispatch (subject to
additional technical and economic constraints). In order to fulfil the hourly
energy balance, the model can also chose “involuntary load curtailment”, i.e. not
to meet demand in every hour. This involuntary load curtailment or Loss-ofLoad induces additional costs that are included in the objective function, the
“Value-of-lost-Load”. Hence, we include the possibility that it might be more
efficient to not serve all consumers than to build one additional power plant to
serve the last consumer.23

23

Assumed Value-of-lost-Load: 15.000 €/MWh. Our estimation is based on ENTSO-E (2013);
Frontier Economics/Formaet Services (2014).

Simulation of the future power market

32

3.2

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Base case assumptions
In this section, we describe the power market assumptions that define our base
case scenario for the Netherlands.24 The base case represents a scenario which is
built upon a combination of current market expectations, e.g. regarding fuel
prices and CO2 prices, political targets for example for the development of RESE etc.. The section is structured as follows:

3.2.1



Fuel and CO2-prices (section 3.2.1);



Power demand (section 3.2.2);



Power plants and generation capacity (section 3.2.3);



Development of renewable energy source – RES-E (section 3.2.4);



Development of demand-side response (section 3.2.5).



Interconnection capacities (section 3.2.6).

Fuel and CO2-price assumptions
Prices of fossil fuels and CO2 play an important role in determining the outlook
of the power system. The fuel and CO2 prices affect the variable costs of
generation and therefore the power prices and profitability of generation units.
Fuel prices (coal and gas)
We have derived our fuel price assumptions according to the following logic:





Short-term (until 2017) development according to current market
expectations – The short-term development is derived from future prices of
the trading day 07 January 2015. We have used the prices noted at the Title
Transfer Facility (TTF) for gas and CIF ARA prices for coal.25
Medium- and long-term based on World Energy Outlook (2014, New
Policies scenario) – The oil price projection of the World Energy Outlook
(2014, New Policies scenario) serves as the basis for our long-term fuel price
development:



The medium-term development (2018-2020) price development is
modelled as linear interpolation between the last future price (2017) and
the first year of price notation based on the WEO (2021).

24

Assumptions for other modelled regions are included in Annexe 2.

25

The model includes additional transportation costs for hard coal depending on the transport
distance.

Simulation of the future power market

September 2015 | Frontier Economics



33

The long-term (after 2021) development of coal and gas prices is
derived from oil prices based on expected heat equivalence ratios (oilto-gas and oil-to-coal)26

Figure 12 shows a substantial drop in fuel prices from 2011 to 2015. The latest
drop in prices is partly caused by the sharp decline in oil prices observed at the
end of 2014/beginning of 2015 from around 100 USD/bbl to ca. 50 USD/bbl
(Brent)). We expect that prices will increase again in the next years, which is also
reflected in current future prices for oil.27
Figure 12. Fossil fuel price assumptions (Base Case)
40

natural gas TTF / hard coal CIF ARA
(€2013/MWh, LHV)

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

natural gas (historical)

natural gas (projection)

coal (historical)

2039

2037

2035

2033

2031

2029

2027

2025

2023

2021

2019

2017

2015

2013

2011

0

coal (projection)

Source: Frontier
All prices are noted in lower heating values.

Compared to today’s low price levels, we expect that gas prices will increase by
11 €/MWh(th) in real terms (base year 2013), which is equal to an increase by
50% from 2015 until 2035. Coal prices are expected to increase from 7
EUR/MWh(th) in 2015 by 80% to 12.5 EUR/MWh(th) in 2035. This implies
that coal will get more expensive in heating equivalence terms compared to gas
taking into account the low coal price levels observed today.

26

Heat equivalence ratios express the price relationship of fossil fuels, converted to EUR/MWh(th).
We assume decreasing ratios for gas/oil and coal/oil in the long-run - on the one hand because of
the ongoing decoupling of oil and gas prices and higher availability of gas compared to oil (e.g. shale
gas and LNG); on the other hand because of the longer resource availability of coal compared to
gas or oil and a flatter marginal cost curve for coal than for the other primary energies.

27

World Bank Commodity Price Forecast anticipates increasing oil prices to around 100
USD(nominal)/bbl in 2025.

Simulation of the future power market

34

Frontier Economics | September 2015

CO2-prices
The European Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) has been characterised by an
“oversupply” of emission certificates in past years. This oversupply can be
attributed to a drop of demand due to the financial and economic crisis but also
due to higher shares of RES-E in Europe that substitute conventional power
generation and in return decrease the demand for emission certificates.28 As the
total supply of certificates in a “cap & trade” system like the EU ETS is fixed by
the emission cap, the price has decreased substantially. Nevertheless, we expect
that the EU ETS will maintain its role as the central instrument for climate
change on the European level. Therefore, we expect the price to rise in the
medium- to long-run after market reforms have been implemented.29
We derive our CO2-price assumptions according to the following logic:






Short-term (until 2017) development according to current market
expectations – We use CO2 price futures (trading day 5 January 2015) to
derive our short-term price projection.
Medium-term (2018-2030) price development based on the “Nationale
Energieverkenning” (National Energy Survey)30 – We use the CO2-price
assumptions derived in the National Energy Survey in 2014 (scenario
“Voorgenomen beleid”).
Long-term (after 2030) perspective based on World Energy Outlook
(Current Policies Scenario) – For the period after 2030, we use the prices
given in the World Energy Outlook 2014 (Current Policies Scenario) and
linear interpolation from the last price indicated in the NEV to WEO price
in 2040.

Figure 13 shows the assumed CO2-price development. We expect prices from
circa 7 EUR/tCO2 in 2015 to around 30 EUR/tCO2 in 2035.

28

European Commission (2012).

29

The European Commission will introduce several measures that aim at increasing the CO2 price and
therefore the incentive scheme of the EU ETS. As a temporary measure, a certain amount of
certificates has been taken out of the market (so-called “Backloading”) and will be fed back into the
system at the end of this trading period. The discussed “Market Stability Reserve” represents a
possible medium term option (from 2021) to stabilise pricing signals. This option has been backed
by the Environment Committee of the European Parliament end of February 2015. (See Press
release Consumer/Environment 24/02/2015).

30

ECN/PBL (2014).

Simulation of the future power market

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

35

Figure 13. CO2-price assumption (Base Case)
Historical/ Futures (05/01/2014)

Base Case

35

30

€(real)2013/tCO2

25

20

15

10

5

2035

2034

2033

2032

2031

2030

2029

2028

2027

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

0

Source: Frontier

3.2.2

Power Demand
Our assumption for the development of power demand is based on the demand
projection used in the National Energy Survey (Nationale Energieverkenning,
NEV) published by ECN and PBL in 2014.31 The NEV assumes a moderate
growth of power consumption in the next years. Including network losses, net
electricity consumption is assumed to increase from 117 TWh in 2015 to 121
TWh in 2035. This growth reflects the moderate average demand increase in the
most recent years and includes two countervailing trends for the future;



Increased demand due to growth of GDP and



Increased energy efficiency which leads to a decoupling of the formerly
strong relationship between power demand and the GDP.

We base our assumptions on the assumed demand growth of the NEV until
2030 and use linear extrapolation for the years after 2030 (Figure 14).

31

Net electricity consumption; ”implemented and planned policies” (excluding own-production
including grid losses)

Simulation of the future power market

36

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Figure 14. Assumed development of electricity consumption
130

NEV

historical development

linear extrapolation

120

TWh

110

100

90

80

70
2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

Source: Frontier

3.2.3

Power plants and generation capacity
The Dutch power plant park is characterised by a large share of conventional
generation capacities. Based on economic reasoning, our power market model
optimises the existing power plant park through



Retirement of power plants (before end of lifetime if economic);



Mothballing of power plants;



Reactivation of mothballed capacity; and



Investment in new generation capacity.

In our modelling, mothballing and reactivation of power plants are associated
with costs. Investment costs for conventional power plants are indicated in
Table 1. Mothballing of power plants reduces the yearly fixed operation and
maintenance costs of the power plant by 75%. The reactivation of a power plant
is followed by a one-time payment of 25% of the yearly fixed operation and
maintenance costs.
Development of thermal generation capacity
Our assumptions regarding the existing power plant park are derived from Platts
PowerVision, a commercial database with information on retirements and
additions of power plants and other publically available information e.g. on
mothballing of specific units. Further adjustments of thermal capacity were

Simulation of the future power market

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

37

derived from the Energy Agreement (regarding closure of coal-fired power
plants) and the Monitoring Report published by the Dutch TSO, TenneT.32
In 2015, installed generation capacity amounts to ca. 35 GW, of which 29 GW
are fossil fuel fired power plants (Figure 15).
Figure 15. Installed generation capacity (NL, 2015)
40,000

solar
wind_on

35,000

wind_off

30,000

ROR

MW

25,000

other_RES

20,000

other

oil

15,000

gas (decentral)
10,000

gas (central)

5,000

coal
nuclear

0
2015

Source: Frontier
ROR = run-of-river hydro power generation

Our modelling takes into account known market entries (investment) until 2020
as well as known mothballing decisions and retirements based on the end of the
technical lifetime of power plants as exogenous assumptions.33 In the short-term
(2015-2020), this includes



Known retirement of 2.6 GW coal-fired generation until June 2017
based on the Energy Agreement;



Known mothballing of 4 GW of gas-fired capacity;



Known investment in 2.6 GW of coal-fired power generation capacity.

In addition to those additions and retirements, the model can decide on
additional investment, earlier retirement of plants or on additional mothballing
and reactivation of generation capacities.

32

TenneT (2014).

33

Our model does not include retrofitting to achieve a lifetime extension but allows for replacement
investments.

Simulation of the future power market

38

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Possible investment options in the Netherlands
The outlook of the future electricity system in the Netherlands is influenced by
the technological development and the availability of new generation
technologies, as for example carbon-capture and storage (CCS) for coal and gas
plants as well as new storage solutions.34 We include the following options in our
modelling for investments in the Netherlands (Table 1 – further details on the
technologies provided in Annexe 2):



Hard coal - with and without CCS (as “integrated gasification combined
cycle” (IGCC) technology);



Natural gas – “combined cycle gas turbines” (CCGT) and “open cycle
gas turbines” (OCGT);



Nuclear power;



Power storages - “compressed air energy storage” (CAES), “advanced
adiabatic compressed air energy storage” (AACAES), and power-to-gas
(and back to power).

Table 1 shows the assumed investment costs per MW. Beside investment costs,
thermal efficiency, if applicable storage volume and other variable costs
determine which technologies will be built in the power market model.

34

Investment costs are derived from multiple source and previous project experience.

Simulation of the future power market

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

39

Table 1. Investment options in the power market model *)
Technology / Fuel

Available in
(year)

Investment cost
(EUR/kW)

Hard coal

2015

1,750

Natural Gas (OCGT)

2015

450

Natural Gas (CCGT)

2015

750

Hard coal (IGCC) with
CCS

2025

2,750

Natural Gas (CCGT) with
CCS

2025

1,200

CAES

2023

806

AACAES

2030

1,300

Power-to-Gas (to-Power)

2030

1,650

Nuclear

2035

4,600

Source: Frontier
*) The investment in RES-E enters the model as exogenous assumption (see section 3.2.4). Assumed
costs of renewable energy sources are included in section 4.3.

Combined-heat and power generation
A large share of electricity supply in the Netherlands is produced in combinedheat and power (CHP) facilities, i.e. power plants with the primary use of heat
generation either for



industrial processes;



district heating; or



agriculture and horticulture.

In 2013, around 13 GW of installed generation capacities are characterised as
CHP capacities:



5 GW central generation capacities (gas and coal) mainly for district
heating and industrial heat generation; and



7.5 GW of decentralised generation capacities mainly for agriculture and
horticulture (green-houses) and industrial heat generation (see Figure
16).

Simulation of the future power market

40

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Electricity generation from CHP amounted to around 50% of total inland power
generation (50 TWh).
Figure 16. Combined heat and power generation and capacities
Power generation by CHP (2013)

Installed CHP capacity (2013)

Decentral production
Central production

60

50

3.000 MWe

Central
capacity
5.068 MWe

40

TWh

30

Decentralized
capacity
7.591 MWe

1.984 MWe

30

695 MWe
414 MWe
1.498 MWe

20

Agriculture and horticulture
10

Chemistry

20

Waste incineration

Food and beverage

0

Other

Source: Frontier based on CBS statline

In our modelling of the electricity system, power generation from CHP is treated
partly as exogenous generation, partly as dispatched generation. Power generation
from CHP follows yearly heat-demand profiles, i.e. power plants have a
minimum load derived from heat demand profiles. In addition to the electricity
generation arising from heat production, certain CHP plants have flexibility and
are optimised like a “regular” power plant. For the future development of
conventional CHP generation, we apply the following (simplifying) assumptions:



Constant decentral generation: Electricity supply from decentral
CHP capacities, as for example greenhouses, is regarded as bi-product
of heat-generation. We assume that the underlying economics of
decentral CHP capacities do not change and that generation will remain
constant.



Slightly decreasing central generation: Central CHP capacities are
influenced by power market economics to a greater extent. We assume
that central conventional CHP installations can remain online until the
end of their technical lifetime, but may be mothballed or retired
beforehand. It has to be noted that we don’t model the new built of
central conventional CHP installations endogenously since the specific
circumstances of heat demand etc. (which are not part of the model)
drive the economics of each single unit and therefore the decisions to
renew or refrain from renewal of old units. The assumption of absent
replacement investments is consistent with results of studies that have

Simulation of the future power market

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

41

assessed economic situation of conventional CHP plants.35 Instead, we
include the option of new-built gas-plants (OCGT and CCGT).
These assumptions lead to a moderate decrease of combined-heat and power
generation from conventional power plants. At the same time, we expect CHP
generation from renewable (biomass) plants to increase in the long-run as
additional financial support is granted under the SDE (+) support scheme (see
section 3.2.4).36
Figure 17. Assumed development of central and decentral CHP capacity
(conventional)
decentral CHP capacity

14,000

central CHP capacity

installed capacity (MW)

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0
2015

2020

2023

2025

2030

2035

Source: Frontier

3.2.4

Development of renewable electricity supply (RES-E)
The current political targets expressed in the Energy Agreement foresee a
significant growth of renewable energy sources in electricity supply. As the
development of renewable energy sources in the electricity sector is very much
driven by political initiatives and support schemes, we assume an exogenous
growth path of RES-E capacities and generation based on:



Current political targets for RES-E capacity; or



Secondary sources on future RES-E development in the Netherlands.37

In the Base Case, we assume a significant increase of renewable electricity supply
from around 14 TWh in 2015 to more than 60 TWh in 2035. This corresponds

35

E.g. CE Delft / DNV GL (2014).

36

ECN/PBL (2014), p. 100.

37

ENTSO-E Scenario Outlook and Adequacy Forecast (SO&AF) RES-E capacities in other modelled
countries are derived accordingly based on legal targets and / or secondary sources.

Simulation of the future power market

42

Frontier Economics | September 2015

to an increase of the share of renewable electricity of net demand from 12 % in
2015 to ca. 50% in 2035. The development of renewable electricity supply is
based on the following assumptions:









Wind-onshore – According to the Energy Agreement, onshore wind power
installations are expected to increase to 6 GW in 2020. Thereafter, we
assume a yearly growth of wind-onshore installations by 200 MW/a, in line
with growth expectations from ENTSO-E SO&AF (2014, Scenario B /
Vision 3).
Wind-offshore – The Energy Agreement includes plans to increase the
installed capacity of wind-offshore turbines to 4450 MW in 2023. Thereafter,
we assume ongoing growth of wind-offshore capacities to 6 GW in 2030
based on ENTSO-E SO&AF (2014, Vision 3).38
Solar PV – There are no explicit political targets regarding the development
of solar PV installations in the Netherlands. However, solar PV is eligible to
the support scheme SDE (+) and, in addition, small scale installations are
benefiting from net-metering.39 Therefore, we assume increasing solar PV
capacity based on the following logic:



We assume a short-term increase to 5.5 GW until 2020, based on NEV
(planned and implemented policies);



We assume a moderate increase to 8 GW in 2030 based on ENTSO-E
SO&AF (2014, Vision 3) and a linear trend afterwards.

Other RES-E (biomass) – We expect an increase in electricity production
from other renewables, especially from biomass in combined-heat and
power plants.40 Our growth path is derived from NEV41 in the short-term
(until 2020) and ENTSO-E SO&AF (2014, Vision 3) in 2030 (linear trend
afterwards).

Figure 18 shows the assumed growth of renewable electricity supply.

38

Capacity development after 2030 is derived based on a linear trend of the previous years.

39

Net-metering applies to consumers that are connected to the distribution grid and reduces the
burden of energy taxes to the amount of net electricity consumption, i.e. no energy taxes have to be
paid on the auto-produced electricity.

40

As the majority of electricity supply from biomass is CHP, we model power generation from
biomass as exogenous in-feed, based on a typical heat-demand profile and upward flexibility.

41

Capacities are scaled to meet generation according to assumed utilisation of power plants from
combined-heat and power production.

Simulation of the future power market

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

43

Figure 18. Development of renewable electricity supply
70
solar

60

TWh

50

ROR

40
wind_on

30
20

wind_off

10
other_RES

0
2015

2020

2023

2025

2030

2035

Source: Frontier

3.2.5

Demand-Side Response
Beside generating electricity and investing in conventional generation or storage
technologies, the model’s energy balance can also be met through load reduction,
i.e. Demand-Side Response (DSR). In our model, we differentiate between two
types of DSR:





Load reduction – Market participants can offer a reduction of the hourly
load, i.e. through lowering industrial production or by using emergency
generators. We assume that these capacities can enter the market at
comparably low costs for information and communication technologies but
each unit of reduced load incurs high variable costs, e.g. for foregone valueadded of industry.42 We assume that load reduction capacities are primarily
available in the industrial sector.
Load shifting – Market participants can offer to move their consumption
of electricity to hours with lower prices. The reduced load must be balanced
within in a certain period of time. As the shifted load needs to be balanced,
the variable costs of the load shifting itself are small and arise mainly from
efficiency losses or loss of use.43 We assume that load shifting capacities are

42

We differentiate between three discrete cost steps: 500 €/MWh; 1,500 €/MWh; 2,500 €/MWh.

43

We assume that load shifting must be balanced within 24 hours; variable costs of load shifting
amount to 2 €/MWh.

Simulation of the future power market

44

Frontier Economics | September 2015

for example available in private households, commercial or in the services
sector, i.e. from electrical vehicles that can shift their loading or from heatpumps. The supply of load-shifting depends on the underlying consumption
pattern, e.g. load-shifting potentials from heat-pumps in the summer are
limited as the heat-pumps are typically more in use in winter times.
Unfortunately, there are no explicit informations available as to how much DSR
is participating in today’s market. Nevertheless, a number of studies show that
participation of demand in the power market is expected to increase. Based on
this assumption, we have included increasing investment potentials for DSR in
the model44:





Existing DSR capacities – According to ENTSO-E45, 1 GW of DSR is
part of today’s electricity system in the Netherlands. We assume that these
capacities are load-reduction capacities. In addition, we assume that
additional 200 MW of load-shifting capacities are available from heatpumps.46
Further potential for investment in DSR – In addition to the already
existing DSR capacities, we assume that further investment potential will be
available in the future:



We assume that additional 700 MW of load reduction potential, mainly
arising from industry and emergency generation units, could enter the
market.47



We assume that additional 720 MW (de-rated) of load shifting potentials
from e-cars48 and heat pumps49 will be available in the longer term.

The actual development of future DSR capacities, however, is part of the
optimisation of the power market model and therefore dependent on market
environment in the specific sensitivities and scenarios. In addition to the
voluntary load reduction, the model can choose to curtail load on an involuntary
basis at the costs of the “Value-of-lost-Load” (see section 3.1).

44

De-rated according to assumed availability in peak-period (winter period, Monday-Friday from 17:00
to 20:00).

45

ENTSO-E SO&AF (2014), Scenario B.

46

CBS statline:. 2500 MW_th capacity in 2012: We convert the thermal capacity to 900 MW electrical
capacity using a power-to-heat ratio of 1/3, i.e. heat pumps generate 3 MWh of heat using 1 MWh
of power.

47

Deloitte (2004).

48

RVO (2010): 1 mn. e-cars in 2025, we assume that this target will be achieved in 2030 (ca. 4 kW per
vehicle, not de-rated).

49

Rijkswaterstaat.nl (2010): Additional 2400 MW electrical capacity in 2030 (not de-rated).

Simulation of the future power market

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

45

Figure 19. Development of Demand-Side Response*)
3,000
existing load
reduction

2,500

MW

2,000

existing load
shifting

1,500

additional load
reduction potential

1,000

additional load
shifting potential

500

0
2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

Source: Frontier
*) De-rated capacity according to assumed availability in peak-period (winter period, Monday-Friday from
17:00 to 20:00)

3.2.6

Cross-border capacities
Increasing interconnection capacity between countries in Europe is an important
cornerstone of the European internal electricity market. Therefore, the
development of cross-border connections is an important assumption and
influences the outcomes of the power market modelling significantly.
The Netherlands is a country with high interconnection to its neighbouring
countries, notably Germany and Belgium Additional interconnections are in place
to Great Britain (BritNed) and Norway (NorNed). In 2015, total cross-border
capacity from/to the Netherlands amounted to almost 6 GW, approximately one
third of peak load.
Based on our assumptions, cross-border capacity will increase further in the next
years: Our assumptions regarding the development of interconnection capacity
are based on ENTSO-E’s Ten-Year-Network-Development-Plan.50 In addition,
we have confirmed the development of power interconnectors to and from the
Netherlands with TenneT’s monitoring report.51 Figure 20 shows the average of
import and export capacity to/from the Netherlands52:

50

We assume that projects that are in the earlier planning phases will come online with a certain delay:
“design and permitting” + 2 years; “planning” + 5 years; “under consideration” + 15 years.

51

TenneT (2014).

52

Assumptions regarding interconnectors across Europe are included in Annexe 2.

Simulation of the future power market

46

Frontier Economics | September 2015



Interconnections to Germany will increase in 2018 and 2021 to a total
of 4.5 GW in 2021.



Interconnections to Belgium will increase to 2.4 GW by 2018.



Interconnection to Denmark (Cobra Cable) will be established by 2021.

Figure 20. Assumed development of interconnection capacity (NL)
DE

BE

NORDPOOL

2020

2025

GB

DK

averafe of import and export capacity (MW)

10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
2015

2030

2035

Source: Frontier

3.3

Power market outlook – Base Case results
In this section, we present the modelling results for the Base Case scenario with
focus on the electricity market in the Netherlands. Information on the
development in other modelled regions is included in Annexe 2. The section is
structured as follows:



Development of generation capacities and power generation (section
3.3.1);



Development of Demand-Side Response (section 3.3.3);



Electricity imports and exports to and from the Netherlands (section
3.3.3); and



Development of power prices (section 3.3.4).

Simulation of the future power market

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

47

Main results of the power market study (Base Case)










3.3.1

Energy transition does not pose threat to Dutch power market and
Security of Supply – Our base case shows that - even in a system with high
shares of renewable electricity in the system - the Dutch power market is
able to ensure security of supply. We don’t expect scarcity of generation
capacities to take effect in the Netherlands in the foreseeable future, as
previously mothballed capacity is reactivated in the medium-term (until
2023) and new investments take place in the long-run (until 2035).
High electricity supply from renewable energy sources increases
exports to neighbouring countries – The assumed growth of RES-E to
47% of Dutch power demand increases exports to neighbouring countries,
especially Germany. In the medium-term (after 2023), we expect that the
currently observed net-import position of the Netherlands will be reversed
to a net-exporting position.
Growing participation of demand side in the market – Increasing
potentials of demand side response (load reduction and load shifting) can be
expected to enter the market in the long-run (after 2030).
Increasing power prices in the medium-term – In line with the assumed
medium-term development of fuel and CO2-prices, we observe increasing
electricity price levels in Central-Western-Europe in the medium term. In the
long-term (after 2030), power prices increase only moderately, due to higher
renewable electricity generation and interconnection capacity between
regions.
Price convergence between Germany and the Netherlands – With
increasing interconnection capacity between Germany and the Netherlands,
we observe growing price convergence between the two countries. In the
medium-term, hourly prices are almost fully integrated.

Power generation and development of generation capacity
In the base case, we observe the following trends regarding power generation and
capacity development:
No scarcity of generation capacity expected
With increasing shares of intermittent renewable energy, total installed generation
capacity grows in the long-run:



Increase in RES-E and decreasing conventional power generation
capacities – As outlined in section 3.2.4, we assume a significant increase

Simulation of the future power market

48

Frontier Economics | September 2015

in renewable power production in the Netherlands. At the same time,
conventional generation capacities are reduced compared to (very high)
current levels:



Assumed increase of RES-E capacities from 4 GW in 2015 to more
than 26 GW in 2035;



Decrease of operational conventional generation capacity from 29 GW
in 2015 to 20 GW in 2035.

Figure 21 shows the development of operational generation capacity in the
Netherlands from 2015 until 2035. Operational generation capacity
compared to installed capacity does not include a total of 7.5 GW of
mothballed capacities from 2015 until 2019.53
Figure 21. Development of operational generation capacity (NL)
other

60

solar
ROR

50

hydro
40

wind_on

GW

wind_off
30

other_RES
gas (decentral)

20

oil
gas

10
coal
nuclear
0
2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

Peak Load

Source: Frontier



Additional mothballing and retirements in the short-run – Based on the
assumed capacity development from 2015-2019, we observe additional
retirements and mothballing of conventional power plants in the
Netherlands:



53

In total, 11.8 GW of conventional generation capacities are closed down
temporarily or permanently from 2015 to 2019. In addition to the
already known retirements and mothballing decisions, this includes

The 7.5 GW include 4 GW of plants that are mothballed until 2015.

Simulation of the future power market

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

49

earlier retirement of old oil and gas-fired plants (2 GW) and additional
mothballing of 3.5 GW gas-fired generation capacity;



At the same time, 2.6 GW of (known) new coal fired generation
capacities enter the market.54

However, this net-decrease of generation capacity does not pose a threat to
generation adequacy in the Netherlands, as the current capacity situation is
very comfortable in the Netherlands, mothballed capacity is reactivated
when needed (see below) and sufficient interconnection capacity to
neighbouring countries is available.



Reactivation of mothballed capacities and replacement investment for
nuclear in the medium to long-term – Based on the assumed growth path
for renewables, the continued availability of CHP plants and the increase in
interconnection capacities with neighbouring countries, the need for new
power plant investments in the Netherlands is limited in the medium and
longer term. At the same time, mothballed power plants are reactivated:



In the medium to long-run, we observe that previously mothballed
capacity re-enter the market until 2030 (ca. 1 GW in model-period 2020
and ca. 5 GW in model period 2023);



In addition, the retired Borssele nuclear power plant could be replaced
with a new investment in 2035 according to the model results.

Figure 22 shows the development of conventional generation capacity, i.e.
investment and reactivation are marked as positive values, retirements and
mothballing as negative values.

54

Known entries until 2016: Maasvlakte 2 (1.1 GW); Eemshaven (1.5 GW).

Simulation of the future power market

50

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Figure 22. Development of conventional generation capacities
nuclear

coal

gas

oil

nuclear

6
4
2
0

GW

-2

-4
-6
-8
-10
-12

-14
2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

Source: Frontier



55

No threat to security of supply – Capacity levels decrease in the shortterm due to mothballing of gas-fired power plants. The adequacy reserve
margin in 2020 amounts to -0.5 GW excluding import capacities and to 7.5
GW including import capacities.55 Nevertheless, there is sufficient capacity
available to guarantee security of supply in the short-term long-term (based
on indicative capacity balance, Figure 23), as mothballed plant could be reactivated. In addition, no involuntary load-reduction (“Loss-of-Load”) is
pursued. In the long-run, adequacy reserve margins are positive, even
without taking into account import capacities.

ARM= Peak-Load – derated capacity (De-rating factors according to availability in peak-period; see
Annexe 2).

Simulation of the future power market

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

51

Figure 23. Capacity balance (de-rated), Base Case
35

IC-import capacity
de-rated DSR

30

other
solar

25

wind_on

wind_off
ROR

GW

20

hydro
other_RES

15

gas (decentral)
oil

10

gas
coal

5

lig
nuclear

0
2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

Peak Load

Source: Frontier
Used de-rating factors can be found in Annexe 2.

Moving towards a higher share of RES-E power generation and netexports of power
The Base Case shows the following trends in power generation:



Increasing generation of wind-onshore and offshore push RES-E – We
assume the highest increase in generation from renewable energy sources
coming from wind-onshore and wind-offshore installations:



Generation from wind-onshore increases to 21 TWh in 2035; and



Generation from wind-offshore increases to 27 TWh in 2035

In addition, we assume that in-feed from solar PV installations will increase
to 8 TWh and from biomass installations to 10 TWh in 2035. In total, this
leads to an increase in the share of renewable electricity in the system56 from
13% in 2015 to 54 % in 2035.



56

Decreasing generation from conventional power plants – Electricity
supply from conventional thermal power plants today amounts to around
90% of total power supply in the Netherlands. Due to increasing generation
from RES-E, the share of conventional generation will decrease to 55% in
the long-run (2035). We expect

RES-E (%) share of net-demand.

Simulation of the future power market

52



Frontier Economics | September 2015



decreasing generation from coal-fired power plants (-55% from 20152035) as retired coal plants are not replaced;



a small increase of generation from gas-fired power plants (decentral
and central + 10% from 2015 until 2035)57; and



an increase in nuclear electricity supply after the replacement of
Borssele nuclear plant with 1 GW new built nuclear capacity in 2035.

The Netherlands will be net-exporter of power in the medium-term –
With increasing electricity supply from renewable energy sources and high
share of efficient gas-fired power plants, the Netherlands will develop from
net-importing to net-exporting of power in the medium-term:



Net-imports in the short-term until 2020;



Net-exports of power after nuclear phase-out in Germany from 2023
(see section 3.3.2)

Figure 24 shows the modelled power generation in the Netherlands.
Figure 24. Development of power supply in the Netherlands
160

60%
Net-imports

54%
140

other

48%

50%

120

solar

wind_on
38%

80

40%

32%

60

30%

40
20%

20

wind_off

RES-E (%)

Power generation (TWh)

100

hydro
ROR
other_RES
gas (decentral)
oil

13%

gas

0

10%

-20

coal
lig

-40

0%
2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

nuclear
RES-E (%)

Source: Frontier



57

Reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from electricity supply in the
Netherlands by 30% – CO2-emissions of power generation decrease over
time from 54 mn. tCO2 in 2015 to 37 mn. tCO2 in 2035:
The majority of gas-fired generation is produced in CHP plants. We assume that total CHP
decreases moderately from 50 TWh in 2016 to 46 TWh in 2035.

Simulation of the future power market

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

53



Emissions increase slightly by 3 mn. tCO2 to 45 mn. tCO2 from 2020 to
2023. This increase occurs with the reactivation of mothballed gas-fired
power plants and the German nuclear phase-out which results in higher
exports of power (see Figure 24).



After 2023, CO2 emissions decrease constantly to 37 mn. tCO2 in 2035.

Simulation of the future power market

54

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Side note: German Energy Transition (Energiewende)
The German power market is subject to a significant transformation process
which affects the whole Central Western Europe market area.



Renewable energy law – Since coming into effect in 2000, the renewable
energy law (EEG) has very effectively increased the share of renewable
energy sources in electricity supply58 from below 10% to around 25% in
2013 (ca. 150 TWh). The goals of the current EEG (2014) are to increase the
renewable share to



40-45% in 2025,



55-60% in 2035; and



80% in 2050.

The current legal framework includes technology specific targets for installed
renewable capacity:



Wind-onshore shall increase by 2.4 - 2.6 GW per year;



Wind-offshore capacities shall amount to 6.5 GW in 2020 and 15 GW
in 2030;



Solar PV installations shall increase by 2.5 GW per year, until a
support cap of 52 GW is reached.

The modelled development of the power market is based on these
assumptions. We further assume that the support for solar PV and the
respective capacities grow only moderately afterwards.



Nuclear phase-out until 2022 – Following the nuclear power accident in
the Japanese nuclear power station of Fukushima in 2011, the German
government had decided on a temporary moratorium of nuclear power
generation in Germany. Subsequently, the German parliament decided on
the phase-out of nuclear power generation until 2022.

Fundamental change of the power plant park
The increase in renewable energy sources to almost 100 GW of installed capacity
in 2015 has lowered utilisation of conventional thermal power plants. In
combination with low prices for fuels and CO2, profitability of thermal
generation is weak. As a result, various power plant operators have announced or
pursued temporary or final retirement of power plants.

58

Share of renewable electricity generation of gross-inland power consumption.

Simulation of the future power market

September 2015 | Frontier Economics





55

Decreasing share of conventional generation – The developments
described above have the following effects in our modelling: Operational
thermal generation capacities decrease from around 90 GW in 2013 to 60
GW in 2020 and further to 32 GW in 2030. Consequently, the share of fossil
fuel generation at net power demand declines from 74% in 2015 to 28% in
2035:



Retirements of coal and lignite fired plants as well as increasing prices
for carbon dioxide emissions lower power generation from coal and
lignite-fired plants by 60% from 250 TWh in 2015 to 92 TWh in 2035.



Power generation of gas-fired power plants increases in the short-term
from 60 TWh in 2015 to 66 TWh in 2023 but decreases again
afterwards to the levels of 2015.

High levels of renewable energy sources – According to the assumptions
described above, in-feed from subsidised renewable energy sources
(including hydro power) increases significantly from 180 TWh in 2015 to
more than 360 TWh in 2035.



Wind-onshore alone will be accountable for around 150 TWh of
generation;



Wind-offshore generation increases to 67 TWh; and



In-feed from solar PV to 53 TWh in 2035.

In sum, this corresponds to an increase the RES-E share of net power
demand to 66% in 2035.



Net-exports of power until 2023, net-imports after completion of the
nuclear phase-out – Despite decreasing levels of conventional generation,
Germany remains net-exporter of power with a power-balance surplus of 30
TWh in 2020. In 2015, nuclear generation amounts to approximately 90
TWh, after completion of the phase-out in 2023, net-exports decrease
significantly to 2 TWh. In the long-run (2030-2035), higher CO2-prices lower
utilisation of the remaining lignite and fired-power plants. As a result,
Germany develops from a net-exporting country to a net-importing country
(+24 TWh in 2035) in the long-run.

Figure 25 shows the development of power generation in Germany in the Base
Case.

Simulation of the future power market

56

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Figure 25. Development of power generation in Germany (Base Case)
700

66%

70%
Net-imports

60%

600

other

60%

solar
48%

400

wind_off
40%

300

wind_on

50%

43%

30%

32%
30%

200

RES-E (%)

Power generation (TWh)

500

hydro
ROR
other_RES
gas (decentral)

20%

100

oil
gas

0

10%

-100

0%

coal
lig

2013

2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

nuclear
RES-E (%)

Source: Frontier
RES-E (%) expressed as share of generation of net-demand

3.3.2

Power exchange with neighbouring countries
As described above, the Netherlands develop from a net-importing country in
the short-term to a net-exporter of power in the long-run. This change is driven
by two main trends:



Increase of RES-E in the Netherlands in the long-run increases supply
in-land of electricity; and



Increasing import requirements of neighbouring countries such as for
example Belgium and Germany (in Germany especially after the nuclear
phase-out in 2023).

In 2015, the Netherlands import 23 TWh, mainly from Germany, and export 17
TWh, mainly to Great Britain and Belgium. In the long-run, imports decrease to
17 TWh while exports increase to 43 TWh in 2035. Figure 26 shows the
development of annual net-imports (positive values) and exports (negative
values) of the Netherlands with neighbouring countries.

Simulation of the future power market

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

57

Figure 26. Power flows to/from the Netherlands
40
NORDPOOL > NL
30
NL > NORDPOOL
20
DK > NL
NL > DK

0

GB > NL

TWh

10

NL > GB
-10
BE > NL
-20

NL > BE
-30

DE > NL
NL > DE

-40

Net-Imports

-50
2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

Source: Frontier

3.3.3

Demand Side Response
We assume increasing potential for demand side response (DSR) which can be
activated if economic under market conditions in the model (see section 3.2.5).
In the base case, substantial amounts of load reduction and load shifting are
realised:





59

Load reduction capacities with low variable costs enter the market –
We observe that load reduction capacities increase in the long-run, especially
in 2035. Those capacities are assumed to have rather low upfront investment
costs e.g. for information and communication technologies but high variable
costs if called. We observe that until 2030, only load reduction capacities
with variable costs of 500 €/MWh enter the market. Capacities with variable
costs of 1.000 €/MWh participate only in 2035, and capacities with even
higher variable costs of load reduction are not activated. Load reduction
potential is especial available in the industry with high energy intensity.
Increasing utilisation of load-shifting potentials – In contrast to load
reduction capacities, load shifting potential are characterised by comparably
higher specific investment costs59 but lower variable costs for load shifting.
Load shifting includes reducing load in one hour and increase hour at a later
point in time, i.e. not charging an e-car in hours with high scarcity on
Higher specific investment costs for information and communication technologies for load shifting
potentials arise from the smaller unit size.

Simulation of the future power market

58

Frontier Economics | September 2015

wholesale level The Base Case includes increasing utilisation of load-shifting
capacities, the de-rated capacity increases to the assumed maximum of
investment potentials (540 MW).
Figure 27. De-rated*) DSR capacity
3,000
Load shifting (new)

2,500
Load reduction (new)

MW

2,000

1,500

Load shifting (existing)

1,000

Load reduction (existing)
500
Total investment potential

0
2013

2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

Source: Frontier
*) de-rated according to assumed availability in peak-period

3.3.4

Development of electricity prices
Power prices in the past 5 years fluctuated around 50 EUR/MWh but decreased
recently to levels below 40 €/MWh. This drop in prices can be explained with
decreasing fuel prices for conventional generation (see Figure 12), weak
electricity demand due to the economic crisis in Europe, increased in-feed from
renewable energy sources in Central-Western-Europe as well as the low levels of
CO2-prices. In this section, we describe the model results regarding future
development of electricity prices for the Netherlands.
Increasing price levels in the medium- to long-term
Based on the base case assumptions, we observe the following development of
power prices:



60

Price levels remain low in the short term (2015-2020) – We expect prices
to increase from today’s low level of 38 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh60 to 46 EUR
(real, 2013)/MWh in 2020.

This development is in line with current market expectations and future prices which were noted
below 40 €/MWh for 2015 (Trading day 05/01/2015).

Simulation of the future power market

September 2015 | Frontier Economics





59

Increasing power prices in the medium-term (2020-2023) – We expect
increasing prices for electricity in the Netherlands to 46 EUR (real,
2013)/MWh in 2020 and 52.6 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh in 2023. Main drivers
of this development are:



Higher fuel and CO2-prices that increase the short-run marginal costs of
thermal power generation;



The completion of the German nuclear phase-out in 2023 decreasing
generation capacity availability in Germany;



General reduction of overcapacity in Central-Western-Europe through
retirement and mothballing of conventional generation capacity leading
to increasing prices in European power markets.

Moderate price increase in the long-run (2030-2035) – In the longer
term, we expect that price levels will remain constant until 2030 and increase
moderately until 2035 (57 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh). Further assumed
increases in fuel and CO2-prices drive the upward trend of wholesale power
prices. This effect, however, is (over)-compensated by the following
developments:



Higher in-feed from renewable energy sources in Europe, especially
Germany;



More interconnection capacity to neighbouring countries and generally
across Europe allows to run of the European electricity system more
and efficient and therefore to reduce costs; and



Reactivation of mothballed capacity strengthens the supply side of the
market.

Figure 24 shows the development of prices in the Netherlands.

Simulation of the future power market

60

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Figure 28. Power prices (yearly average, NL)
Base Case

Future prices 05/01/2015

Historical prices (APX)

60

57.0
52.7

52.6

EUR(real, 2013)/MWh

50

46.0

38.0

40

30

20

10

2035

2034

2033

2032

2031

2030

2029

2028

2027

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

0

Source: Frontier
Modelled years: 2015, 2020, 2023, 2030, 2035

Increasing price volatility and high price spikes in the long-run
Based on increasing in-feed from intermittent renewable energy sources in CWE,
we expect that volatility of prices will increase significantly in the longer term.
Increasing shares of RES-E in the electricity system affects the prices in two
ways:



high prices in times of low in-feed from RES-E, especially wind and
solar PV – prices peak especially in a low number of hours with low
RES-E in-feed and high electricity demand. For example in winter times
in the early evening when in-feed from solar PV is very low but demand
increases with high domestic consumption of electricity; and



very low prices in times of high in-feed from RES-E, for example at
night on very windy week-end, i.e. when demand is comparably low but
in-feed from wind-power is high.

In the model, we observe this effect in the Netherlands especially after 2030,
with price spikes above 2,000 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh in 2030 and above 3,300
EUR (real, 2013)/MWh in 2035 but also negative prices caused by very high
much RES-E supply in the system.61 Figure 29 shows the price duration curve of

61

Price peaks in specific hours will only be paid by a very limited number of market participants:
Consumer prices are in most cases fixed prices that means wholesale price peaks are not passed-on
to many consumers on a real-time basis. Furthermore, electricity retail companies and large
industrial consumers buying power on the spot market can hedge against price peaks e.g. by buying

Simulation of the future power market

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

61

the Netherlands for the modelled years (hourly prices ranked from the highest
hourly price to the lowest hourly price):



Price curves in later years are shifted upward reflecting higher overall
price levels due to higher fuel costs for thermal generation;



Higher share of hours with very high prices and with very low prices
resulting from higher RES-E shares in Europe.

Figure 29. Price duration curve (NL)
200
Maximum price [EUR(real, 2013)/MWh]

150

2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

500

500

1,500

2,386

3,336

EUR(real)/MWh

2015
100
2020
50

2023

0

2030
2035

-50

-100

highest prices

Source: Frontier

The changing price pattern affects also the daily structure of wholesale electricity
prices:



Lower price peaks during the day (at noon) due to higher in-feed from
solar PV;



Increasing price spikes in peak load hours in the early evening (18h19h); and



Activation of demand side response (load shifting) and storages across
Europe increase prices in off-peak periods.

Figure 30 shows the daily price structure expressed as average hourly prices
divided by the annual average power price (right-hand side of Figure 30). The

power on the forward market, by purchasing options or by backing up procurement with own
generation capacities or demand flexibility. These risk hedging contracts can form constant revenue
streams for power plant operators and are therefore important for the market. Only market
participants which have not hedged against price risks will face potential short term price peaks.

Simulation of the future power market

62

Frontier Economics | September 2015

left-hand side graph provides two volatility measures, the base-peak spread62 and
the average daily standard deviation of prices. Both measures indicate an increase
of price volatility in the long-run.
Figure 30. Price volatility and daily price structure
Price volatiliy (EUR/MWh)
Base-Peak Spread

Average daily price structure (%)

Average daily StDev

2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

160%

16

140%

14
14

€(real) /MWh

10

% of yearly average

12
10

8

9

8
7

6

120%
100%
80%
60%

4

40%

2

20%

0

0%
2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
hour of the day

Source: Frontier

Increased integration of Dutch and German power prices after 2020
We expect an increasing convergence of prices in Central-Western-Europe
(CWE) and especially between the Netherlands and Germany:



62

Belgium faces the highest prices in CWE, France the lowest prices in
the long-run



We expect that Belgian power prices (beige line, Figure 31) are the
highest in CWE, induced by the tightest supply situation regarding
generation capacities.



German wholesale power prices are the lowest in the short-term but
increase after 2020 due to the completion of the nuclear phase-out and
increasing fuel and emission costs especially for coal and lignite power
generation (dark blue line, Figure 31).



Prices in France (light blue line, Figure 31) increase until 2023 but
decrease afterwards to levels significantly below the other countries.
This can be explained by the assumed development of generation
capacity subject to the French capacity mechanism as well as by
increasing power generation from renewable sources lowering wholesale
market prices.

Peak period: Weekday, hours 9-20.

Simulation of the future power market

September 2015 | Frontier Economics



63

Medium-term convergence of Dutch and German power prices – The
completion of the interconnector expansion between the Netherlands and
Germany as well as an increasing convergence of the power plant parks
(higher wind power capacity in NL, decommissioning of nuclear and coal
plants in Germany) lead to a significant price convergence between the two
countries: The hourly price differences between Germany and the
Netherlands are below 1 €/MWh



in 55% of the modelled hours in 2015;



in 85% of the modelled hours in 2020;



in 99% of the modelled hours in 2023 and 2030; and



84% of the modelled hours in 2035. (Figure 31). The weaker price
correlation from 2030 to 2035 is caused by lower prices in the
Netherlands in off-peak periods due to new base load power generation
coming into operation (nuclear power plant).

It has to be noted that our assumptions only include known interconnector
projects. With increasing price differences in the future, additional
interconnectors could be built in the very long-run. For example, in the model
French electricity prices diverge significantly in the very long term. This is due to
the fact that the power generation mix across the countries is still changing
significantly whereas no major x-border transmission grid extensions are assumed
after the year 2030. In practice, it can be expected that additional interconnectors
beyond known projects as well as the implementation of flow-based market
coupling in the CWE region will increase convergence also in the long-run.

Simulation of the future power market

64

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Figure 31. Price development in CWE
Average yearly prices CWE

Price convergence DE-NL
< 1 €/MWh

70

< 0.1 €/MWh

< 0.01 €/MWh

100%

60

90%
80%
70%

NL
40

DE
BE

30

FR

20

% of hours

€(real,2013) /MWh

50

60%
50%
40%
30%
20%

10

10%

0

2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

0%
2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

Source: Frontier

3.4

Power market outlook – Sensitivity Analysis
In this section, we summarise the results of the power market simulations for
variations of selected input parameters. We have defined six sensitivities, in
which we modify assumptions for fuel and CO2 prices; the development of
generation capacities outside the Netherlands and for the demand response
potential. The sensitivities represent possible developments of these parameters
but do not represent the most likely outcome based on our reasoning.
The sensitivity analysis aims at identifying the impact of the parameters on the
market outcomes (electricity prices, x-border power flows, investments and
power generation) and therefore their impact on the costs of the electricity
supply system. This analysis allows us to understand how the electricity system
reacts to specific exogenous developments.
The sensitivities can be characterised as follows:



Sensitivity 1a “low CO2-prices”: effect of substantial lower CO2prices (section 3.4.1);



Sensitivity 1b “high CO2-prices”: effect of substantial higher CO2prices than in the Base Case (section 3.4.2) ;



Sensitivity 2 “High fuel prices”: effect of substantial higher fuel
prices for coal and gas-fired power plants (section 3.4.3);



Sensitivity 3 “Slow growth of wind power”: effect of lower growth
of wind-energy in the Netherlands (section 3.4.4);



Sensitivity 4 “Increased foreign capacity”: effect of higher installed
capacities in Belgium and France e.g. due to higher capacity
procurement in capacity mechanisms (section 3.4.5); and

Simulation of the future power market

September 2015 | Frontier Economics



65

Sensitivity 5 “Higher demand side response (DSR) potential”:
effect of higher load shifting potentials in the Netherlands (section
3.4.6).

Main results of the sensitivity analysis
The sensitivity analysis aims at identifying the impact of the parameters on the
market outcomes. It allows to understand how the electricity system reacts to a
set of specific exogenous developments:











Lower CO2-prices decrease electricity generation in the Netherlands –
Low prices for carbon dioxide emissions reduce power generation in the
Netherlands (especially gas-fired power generation), as emission-intensive
generation for example from German lignite plants becomes more
economical. Furthermore, we observe higher levels of coal-fired capacity in
the Netherlands and other regions.
High CO2-prices beneficial for electricity generation in the
Netherlands – High prices for carbon dioxide emissions on the other hand
induce higher power generation in the Netherlands since the Dutch power
plant mix has a relatively high share of low-emission gas-fired plants. As a
result, more electricity is exported to other regions. Furthermore, mothballed
power plants (natural gas) are reactivated earlier in the Netherlands.
Higher fuel prices more beneficial for coal-fired plants – Higher fuel
prices for gas and coal are more favourable for coal-fired generation than for
gas if the price increase holds for both primary energies equally in relative
terms. Gas-plants are affected more from the price increase due to a higher
variable-to-fixed cost relation compared to coal plants. The outcome is more
coal-fired plant capacity and higher net-imports into the Netherlands.
Furthermore, wholesale power prices would be substantially higher in the
Netherlands than in the base case.
Lower shares of renewable electricity in the Netherlands would be
substituted primarily by imports – If the envisaged growth of wind power
generation until 2020 is lower than expected, the lack of generation would be
substituted with imports from Germany and a moderate increase of gas- and
coal-fired power generation in the Netherlands. The effect on wholesale
power prices, however, is limited compared to the previous sensitivities.
Spill-over effects from foreign capacity mechanisms may decrease
capacity in the Netherlands – Foreign capacity remuneration mechanisms
(CRM) can have an adverse effect on capacity provision in the Netherlands,
if the foreign capacity mechanisms lead to overcapacities in the region (e.g. if
foreign countries didn’t take contributions from interconnected capacities

Simulation of the future power market

66

Frontier Economics | September 2015

into account in the capacity balance). However, due to sufficient levels of
cross-border interconnection capacity to its neighbours, we don’t expect a
threat to the security of supply of the Dutch electricity sector in this case. In
addition, higher capacities in the region lead to lower electricity price levels
on the energy market. This in return, is beneficial for Dutch consumers, who
do no bear the additional costs of financing the additional capacities built
under the foreign CRM (see section 4).



3.4.1

Limited impact of additional demand response potential – Additional
DSR potential, especially load shifting, does not substantially affect the
installed power plant capacity in the Netherlands. However, the power price
volatility is reduced due to the increased availability of demand side
flexibility. Therefore, market conditions become more favourable for baseload generation, i.e. coal-fired plants, compared to gas-fired plants.

Sensitivity 1a “low CO2-prices”
In this section, we describe the assumptions and the main results for sensitivity
1a “low CO2-prices”.
Motivation and assumptions
The European Union has implemented the EU ETS as the central climate policy
instrument. In the Base Case, we assume that the EU ETS will remain the central
instrument of climate change in the European Union. Therefore, we assume that
prices for carbon dioxide emissions will increase to 30 EUR (real, 2013)/tCO2 in
the long-run.
In the sensitivity, we explore how the electricity system reacts to CO2-prices that
are substantially lower than in the Base Case. Low prices for carbon dioxide
emissions reduce the incentives to reduce CO2 emissions inside the EU ETS.
However, future CO2 prices are highly uncertain and depend on a magnitude of
factors. For example, currently discussed reforms of the EU ETS may not be
implemented or could turn out to only have limited effects on CO2 prices. In this
case, the EU ETS will only provide limited incentives to avoid CO2 emissions in
the future.
Lower CO2 prices can occur due to other reasons e.g. if CO2-abatement costs
are lower than expected due to technological progress, the inclusion of other
industry sectors in the EU ETS (with lower abatement costs), weaker economic
growth than expected (which at the same time less economic activity and
therefore means lower emissions), stronger growth in RES-E capacities in the
system etc.

Simulation of the future power market

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

67

We assume in this sensitivity that prices will remain below 12 EUR (real,
2013)/tCO2 (Figure 32).63
Figure 32. CO2-price assumption sensitivity 1a “low CO2-prices”
35

Difference
30

€(2013)/tCO2

25
19

20
10

15

7
10

Base Case

3

CO2-Sensitivity
- Carry
Forward (2.5%)

5

0

Historical/
Futures
(05/01/2014)

Source: Frontier

Lower CO2-prices more favourable for coal-fired power generation
Lower costs for carbon dioxide emissions are more favourable for fuels with high
emission factors, i.e. hard coal and lignite compared to natural gas. In the
simulation, we observe the following effects on investment decisions and power
plant dispatch in the Netherlands and Europe:



Long-term investment in nuclear power plant replaced with coal-fired
investment – In the Base Case, investment in a nuclear power plant can be
observed in year 2035 in the model. In the sensitivity, this investment is
replaced by hard-coal fired generation capacities. Apart from that, we do not
observe other major effects on the capacity development in the Netherlands.
However, in neighbouring countries, we observe slightly higher coal-fired
capacity on the expense of gas-fired power plants.
Figure 33 shows the difference of installed capacity in the Netherlands
compared to the Base Case (negative values indicate less capacity for a
specific fuel type).

63

The CO2 price of the sensitivity has been derived according to a carry-forward logic (based on
interest rate of 2.5%).

Simulation of the future power market

68

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Figure 33. Sensitivity 1a: Impact on capacity (NL)
Difference of operational capacity
(1a “low CO2-prices” - Base Case)
1.5

DSR
other

solar
wind_on

1.0

wind_off

GW

0.5

ROR
hydro

0.0

other_RES
gas (decentral)

-0.5

oil
gas

-1.0

coal
lig

-1.5

2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

nuclear

Source: Frontier



Less gas-fired generation and more coal-fired generation in the longrun – Compared to the Base Case, power generation from gas-fired power
plants in the short-term is lower and generation from coal-fired plants in the
long-run is higher. In addition, imports to the Netherlands are higher due to
an increase in low-cost lignite power generation in Germany.
In the model, we observe an increase in coal- and lignite fired power
generation in region by 8% in 2035 compared to the Base Case.
Figure 34 shows the difference of power generation in the Netherlands
compared to the Base Case (negative values indicate less generation from a
certain fuel type).

Simulation of the future power market

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

69

Figure 34. Sensitivity 1a: Impact on power generation (NL)
Difference of generation
(1a “low CO2-prices” - Base Case)
15

Net-imports
other
solar

10

wind_on
wind_off

TWh

5

ROR
hydro

0

other_RES
gas (decentral)

-5

oil
gas

-10

coal
lig

-15
2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

nuclear

Source: Frontier





Higher CO2-emissions in Europe – With higher generation from carbonintensive technologies, total CO2-emission increase compared to the Base
Case (+1.3% in total from 2015-2039). Emissions in the Netherlands,
however, increase only slightly due to higher imports of power ( 0.1% from
2015-2039).
Lower wholesale prices in the Netherlands – Lower CO2 prices can
induce downward pressure on power prices in two ways; firstly, generation
cost of all conventional plants are reduced and therefore power prices
decrease. Secondly, the market environment becomes more favourable for
power plants with low variable costs but high emission factors (fuel switch).
In the sensitivity, we observe



a moderate price effect in the short- to medium term (until 2023); but



a significant price effect in the long-run with price reduction of more
than 10 EUR (real, 2013) in 2035 due to the emission costs.

Simulation of the future power market

70

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Figure 35. Sensitivity 1a: Impact on power prices (NL)
1a “low CO2-prices”

Base Case

Historical prices (APX)

60

57.0
52.7

52.6

EUR(real, 2013)/MWh

50

46.0

47.0

46.4

44.0

38.0

40

49.5

38.0
30

20

10

2035

2034

2033

2032

2031

2030

2029

2028

2027

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

0

Source: Frontier

3.4.2

Sensitivity 1b “high CO2-prices”
In this section, we describe the assumptions and the main results for sensitivity
1b “high CO2-prices”.
Motivation and assumptions
In this sensitivity, we examine the effect of higher prices for carbon dioxide
emissions within the EU ETS. A steep increase in prices for emission allowances
could be the result of a sudden increase in demand for EUA, following a strong
recovery after the financial crisis. On the supply side, structural reforms of the
EU ETS could include higher reduction factors in order to achieve the reduction
targets and therefore less supply of certificates in the short term.
In this sensitivity, we explore how the market reacts to higher prices for emission
allowances than in the Base Case, especially to what extent investment and
divestment decisions are influenced by the CO2-price development. Furthermore,
in section 4.3, we will examine the effect of this variation on the profitability of
renewable energy sources, as their costs are not directly affected.
We have based the assumptions of the sensitivity on the CO2-price projection of
the World Energy Outlook’s “New Policies” scenario. We assume a significant
increase of CO2 prices in the short-term (2020) to 22 EUR (real, 2013)/tCO2. In
the long-run (2035), prices are assumed to increase to 43 EUR (real, 2013)/tCO2
in 2035, i.e. 13 EUR (real, 2013)/tCO2 above the Base Case.
Figure 36 shows the CO2-price assumption in this sensitivity as well as the
absolute difference to the Base Case.

Simulation of the future power market

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

71

Figure 36. CO2-price assumption sensitivity 1b “high CO2-prices”
50
Difference

45
40
13

€_2013/tCO2

35
30

16

Historical/ Futures
(05/01/2014)

25
14
20
15

11

CO2-Sensitivity increase (IEA
New Policies)

10
Base Case

5
0

Source: Frontier

High CO2 prices more favourable for gas-fired generation
High costs for carbon dioxide emissions are detrimental for technologies that
have benefited from low carbon prices in the previous sensitivity, i.e. coal-fired
power generation. Accordingly, we observe higher levels of gas-fired generation
than in the Base Case. In detail, the main effects of the sensitivity can be
summarised as follows:



Reactivation of mothballed capacity in the Netherlands takes place
earlier – Mothballed power plants are reactivated earlier than in the Base
Case in the Netherlands. In total, additional gas-fired capacity of
approximately 1 GW is operational in 2020. Furthermore, load-reduction
capacities enter the market later in 2035.

Simulation of the future power market

72

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Figure 37. Sensitivity 1b: Impact on capacity (NL)
Difference of operational capacity
(1b “high CO2-prices” - Base Case)
1.2

DSR
other

solar
1.0

wind_on

0.8

wind_off
ROR

GW

0.6

hydro
0.4

other_RES

0.2

gas (decentral)

oil
0.0

gas

-0.2

coal
lig

-0.4

2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

nuclear

Source: Frontier



Higher gas-fired power generation and exports – With higher costs for
carbon emissions, natural gas plants achieve a cost advantage over coal-fired
plants in the short term power plant dispatch (fuel-switch):



Gas-fired generation in the Netherlands increases by 11% and across all
regions by 12% in 2035; while



Coal-fired plants in the Netherlands decreases by 5% and across all
regions by -10% (coal and lignite).

The increase of gas-fired generation is used almost entirely to export power
to other regions, especially to Germany with its high share of emissionintensive power plants that are affected most from higher CO2-prices.

Simulation of the future power market

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

73

Figure 38. Sensitivity 1b: Impact on power generation (NL)
Difference of generation
(1b “high CO2-prices” - Base Case)

Net-imports

5

other

4

solar
wind_on

3

wind_off

2

ROR

TWh

1

hydro

0

other_RES

-1

gas (decentral)

-2

oil

-3

gas

-4

coal
lig

-5
2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

nuclear

Source: Frontier



Additional generation increases total emissions in the Netherlands –
Due to a less carbon-intensive power plant park; electricity supply in the
Netherlands becomes less costly than e.g. in comparison to Germany. As
described above, this leads to higher exports of power to foreign countries in
the long-run and therefore to moderately higher carbon dioxide emissions
within the Netherlands (+1.4%; 2015-2039).
However, the net-effect in all modelled regions is negative as total emissions
from electricity supply decrease compared to the Base Case due to higher
CO2-prices (-3.3%; 2015-2039).



Price increase due to higher cost for carbon emissions – Higher costs
for carbon dioxide emissions increase the variable costs of power generation.
Consequently, power prices in the Netherlands increase to



levels above 50 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh already in 2020;



reaching more than 63 EUR(real, 2013)/MWh in the long-run (2035).

Simulation of the future power market

74

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Figure 39. Sensitivity 1b: Impact on power prices (NL)
1b “high CO2-prices”

Base Case

Historical prices (APX)

70
63.7

61.6

60.0
60

EUR(real, 2013)/MWh

52.5

57.0

50

52.7

52.6
46.0

38.2

40

38.0
30
20
10

2035

2034

2033

2032

2031

2030

2029

2028

2027

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

0

Source: Frontier

3.4.3

Sensitivity 2 “High fuel prices”
In this section, we describe the assumptions and the main results for sensitivity 2
“High fuel prices”.
Motivation and description
In this sensitivity, we examine the effect of higher primary energy prices, i.e. fuel
prices for gas and coal-fired power plants. As described in section 3.2.1, we have
derived our Base Case fuel price assumption from the World Energy Outlook oil
price projection. The WEO foresees a moderate increase of oil prices in the longrun. This translates in moderately increasing prices for natural gas and coal in the
Base Case (see section 3.2.1).
The future development of primary energy prices is highly uncertain. Therefore,
we analyse the impact of a potential significant variation in future fuel prices on
the Dutch power market in this sensitivity. For this purpose, we use the oil-price
projection of the U.S. Energy Information Administration (Annual Energy
Outlook 2014, “high-price scenario”) instead of the World Energy Outlook
(New Policies scenario). EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook “high-price scenario”
assumes a significant increase in oil-prices in the long-run due to increased
industrial oil-demand, e.g. from the chemical industry,64 reaching 180 $
(2010)/bbl in 2035 (ca. 120 $ (2010)/bbl in the Base Case)

64

EIA (2014), AEO MT-3.

Simulation of the future power market

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

75

Based on this oil price assumption, we derive the following fuel price
development for sensitivity 2 “High fuel prices”:



Gas prices increase to 34.1 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh(th) in 2020 and to
46.9 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh(th) in 2035; and



Coal prices increase to 13 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh(th) in 2020 and to
18.1 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh(th) in 2035.

For both fuel types, this represents an increase of fuel prices of around 45% in
2035 compared to the Base Case. It should be noted, that the fuel prices for gas
and coal are both increased by the same amount in relative term (as a %-change)
compared to the Base Case. This allows us to examine to which extent different
technologies are influenced by variable costs compared to fixed costs.
Figure 40 shows the different oil price projection (left-hand side) and the
resulting fuel price assumptions (right-hand side).
Figure 40. Sensitivity 2 “High fuel prices”
Oil price projections
EIA (2014) High Price

Fuel price assumptions Base Case vs. sensitivity 2

IEA (2014) New policies

200

Gas - Sensitivity 2

Coal - Base case

Coal - Sensitivity 2

50

180

47
44

45

160

EUR(real,2013)/MWh_th

Oil price forecast - Brent $/bbl (2010)

Gas - Base case

140
120
100
80
60

39

40
34

35
30
25
20

30
21
21

32

15

17

18

12

13

2030

2035

13

15

40

10

7

20

5

7

0

32

27

10

12

0
2020

2025

2030

2035

2015

2020

2025

Source: Frontier

High fuel prices more favourable for coal-fired generation
Even though fuel prices for gas and coal are both increased by the same amount
in relative terms compared to the Base Case, the new fuel price relationships are
more favourable for coal-fired generation as variable costs of power generation
represent a higher share of total cost for gas plants compared to coal plants.
Figure 41 illustrates this effect based on an exemplary long-run marginal cost
(LRMC) of power generation from coal and gas plants for 2030.65 The LRMC (yaxis) are calculated in dependence from the full load hours/running hours (xaxis) of the plants in the example year. In the Base Case, coal-fired power plants

65

The calculated LRMC are based on short-run marginal costs of power generation (i.e. fuel costs and
costs of CO2) plus fixed operation and maintenance costs.

Simulation of the future power market

76

Frontier Economics | September 2015

are more economic than gas plants if the plant runs more than 560 hours. In the
sensitivity, coal-fired power plants are more economic than gas plants if the plant
runs more than only 360 hours: The intersection of the LRMC curves of coal and
gas, i.e. coal being more economical than gas, is located more to the left, i.e. with
less running hours than in the Base Case.
Figure 41. Exemplary LRMC calculation “High fuel prices”
Base Case Coal

Base Case Gas (CCGT)

High fuel sensitivity Coal

High fuel sensitivity Gas (CCGT)

100,000

LRMC (without CAPEX) EUR (real, 2013)

90,000

Fuel sensitivity: Coal
more economical after
360 running hours

80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000

Base Case: Coal more
economical after 560
running hours

30,000
20,000
10,000
0
1

165

329
Running hours

493

657

Source: Frontier



Limited effect on generation capacity in the Netherlands – Based on
Figure 41, we have shown that coal plants achieve a comparative advantage
over gas plants from higher fuel prices if both prices are increased to the
same extent (in relative terms). However, the effect on the development of
generation capacity in the Netherland is insignificant.
In the CWE region, gas-fired generation capacity decreases by 3.6 GW in
2035, and coal-fired generation capacity increases by 5.2 GW in 2035
compared to the Base Case.



Increase in net-imports in the Netherlands – The Dutch electricity
market is characterised by a relatively high share of fossil fuelled power
generation capacities. Therefore, dispatch of the power plants is significantly
affected by the fuel price increase:



With increasing fuel prices over time, power generation from gas- and
coal-fired plants in the Netherlands decreases by around 6 TWh in
2035;



At the same time, exports of power decrease while imports increase
(Figure 42).

Simulation of the future power market

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

77

In all modelled regions, gas fired power generation decreases by 7% in 2035
and coal and lignite fired power generation increases by 5 % compared to
the Base Case.
Figure 42. Sensitivity 2: Impact on power generation (NL)
Difference of generation
(2 “high fuel prices” - Base Case)
8

Net-imports
other
solar

TWh

6

wind_on

4

wind_off

2

ROR
hydro

0

other_RES

-2

gas (decentral)
oil

-4

gas
-6

coal
lig

-8
2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

nuclear

Source: Frontier





Less carbon dioxide emission in the Netherlands – Due to decreasing
domestic electricity generation, CO2-emissions decrease in the Netherlands
by -3% in total from 2015 to 2039. On the other hand, total CO2 emissions
in all regions increase by 0.4% (2015-2039) as coal generation is more
economic than natural gas.
Higher fuel prices increase wholesale prices for electricity – We
observe increasing electricity prices due to higher variable costs of
conventional power generation in the sensitivity. Compared to the Base
Case, prices increase



by 15% to 53.3 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh in 2020; and



by 13% to 65.4 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh in 2035 (Figure 43).

Simulation of the future power market

78

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Figure 43. Sensitivity 2: Impact on power prices (NL)
2 “High fuel prices”

Base Case

Historical prices (APX)

70

64.8

62.5

61.8

52.6

52.7

60

EUR(real, 2013)/MWh

52.9

57.0

50
46.0

37.9

40

38.0
30
20
10

2035

2034

2033

2032

2031

2030

2029

2028

2027

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

0

Source: Frontier

3.4.4

Sensitivity 3 “Slow growth of wind power”
In this section, we describe the assumptions and the main results for sensitivity 3
“Slow growth of wind power”.
Motivation and assumptions
In the Energy Agreement, ambitious targets for the growth of wind-onshore and
off-shore capacity are outlined. Goals are to increase



wind-offshore capacity to 4.5 GW in 2023; and



wind-onshore capacity to 6 GW in 2020.

Future growth in RES-E power production depends on a number of factors such
as e.g. the availability of sufficient sources for financing, future decisions on the
RES-E support system and the duration of permitting procedures. Therefore, the
increase in RES-E power generation is uncertain which may have a significant
impact on the whole electricity system. Therefore, we examine the effect of a
slowed-down expansion of wind power on the Dutch electricity system in this
sensitivity.
We assume that the targets laid down in the Energy Agreement will be met only
with a delay of 7 to 10 years. For the sensitivity, we derived the assumptions for
RES-E (wind onshore and offshore) from the Nationale Energieverkenning
(NEV) which analyses the growth of wind power in dependence from the

Simulation of the future power market

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

79

implementation of different policy measures.66 In detail, we assume in the
sensitivity



wind-offshore capacity to reach 1.5 GW in 2023; and



wind-onshore capacity to reach 4 GW in 2020.

Targets for wind power outlined in the Energy agreement will be reached in
2030.
Figure 44. Development of installed capacity (RES-E) Sensitivity 3
Base Case

Sensitivity 3 "Slow growth of wind power"
8
30,000

30,000
other

solar

20,000

MW

ROR

15,000

hydro

10,000

5,000

other

7
25,000
6

bn. EUR
MW(real, 2013)

25,000

solar

5
20,000
4

ROR

3
15,000

hydro

2

wind_on

10,000
1

wind_on

wind_off

0
5,000

wind_off

-1
other_RES

0
2015

2020

2023

2025

2030

2035

-2

0
2015

other_RES
2015

2020
2020

2023

2025
2025

2030

2035
2030

2035

Source: Frontier

Reduced wind energy compensated with imports
Less wind-power has the following effects on the power market:



66

Reduction of wind power capacity with limited effect on conventional
capacity in the NL – The assumed reduction of exogenous wind capacity
does not affect the investment and mothballing decisions in the Netherlands
significantly, as sufficient interconnection capacity is available. 400 MW of
gas-fired generation are reactivated in earlier (2020) than in the Base Case.

ECN/PBL (2014), p. 60-61.

Simulation of the future power market

80

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Figure 45. Sensitivity 3: Impact on capacity (NL)
Difference of operational capacity
(3 “slow growth of wind” - Base Case)
1.0

DSR
other

solar
0.0

wind_on
wind_off

-1.0

ROR

-2.0

GW

hydro
other_RES

-3.0

gas (decentral)

oil

-4.0

gas
-5.0

coal
lig

-6.0

2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

nuclear

Source: Frontier



Lower wind power production compensated by higher imports – As
described above, lower wind capacity does not affect the capacity
development in the Netherlands significantly. Instead, imports to the
Netherlands increase compared to the Base Case and the Netherlands
become net-exporter in 2023. In particular, net-imports



increase by 10 TWh in 2020 compared to the Base Case, especially from
Germany (7 TWh); and



by 7.3 TWh in 2030.67

Electricity generation within the Netherlands, especially generation from gas
and coal-fired plants, increases slightly by 2 TWh in the short-term (2020).

67

Additional information on the imports/exports is included in Annexe 2.

Simulation of the future power market

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

81

Figure 46. Sensitivity 3: Impact on power generation (NL)
Difference of generation
(3 “slow growth of wind” - Base Case)
20

Net-imports
other
solar

TWh

15

wind_on

10

wind_off

5

ROR
hydro

0

other_RES

-5

gas (decentral)
oil

-10

gas
-15

coal
lig

-20
2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

nuclear

Source: Frontier



Security of supply not affected by lower wind-energy – The reduced
wind-power capacity does not affect the de-rated capacity balance of the
Netherlands to a great extent, because of



Reactivation of mothballed plants that takes place earlier; and



The high de-rating of wind-capacity,

The indicative adequacy reserve margin decreases only by small amount and
remains positive in the long-run. As in the Base Case, no involuntary loadcurtailment takes place (Figure 47).

Simulation of the future power market

82

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Figure 47. Capacity balance (de-rated), Sensitivity 3
35

IC-import capacity

De-rated DSR
30

other
solar

25

wind_on
wind_off
ROR

GW

20

hydro

other_RES

15

gas (decentral)
oil

10

gas
coal

5

lig

nuclear

0
2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

Peak Load

Source: Frontier





Increase of emissions due to lower wind power generation – Due to
less RES-E power production with zero emissions, the utilisation of
conventional power plants increases. Consequently, in the sensitivity, carbon
dioxide emission are slightly higher than in the Base Case:



CO2-emissions in the Netherlands (2015-2039) increase by 1.2% in
total; and



Overall CO2-emissions in all modelled regions increase by 1 % (20152039).

Limited effect on wholesale power prices – Wholesale power prices are
higher in the sensitivity than in the Base Case due to lower in-feed from
wind installations in the Netherlands. However, the increase of between 1
and 2 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh is rather minor compared to the CO2 price
and fuel price sensitivities since the variable costs of price-setting power
generation technologies remain unchanged (Figure 48).

Simulation of the future power market

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

83

Figure 48. Sensitivity 3: Impact on power prices (NL)
3 “Slow growth of wind-energy”

Base Case

Historical prices (APX)

70
59.1

60

53.9

53.7

52.6

52.7

EUR(real, 2013)/MWh

57.0
47.3

50

46.0

38.0

40

38.0
30
20
10

2035

2034

2033

2032

2031

2030

2029

2028

2027

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

0

Source: Frontier

3.4.5

Sensitivity 4 “Increased foreign capacity”
In this section, we describe the assumptions and the main results for sensitivity 4
“Increased foreign capacity”.
Motivation and assumptions
The introduction of capacity remuneration mechanism (CRM) is discussed in in a
number of European countries. CRMs aim at controlling the national amount of
power generation capacity in the respective country, or at least at increasing
incentives to invest in new power generation capacity (including demand
flexibility) and/or to keep existing plants in operation. This, in return can affect
investment and power plant dispatch in interconnected or neighbouring
countries, especially if substantial additional power plant capacity is built due to
the CRM compared to a market design without a CRM. The effect on investment
and power plant dispatch crucially depends on the extent to which the CRM
affects the total capacity in the market. For instance, if vast capacity is procured
in context of the CRM, i.e. with a high additional adequacy margin (potentially
leading to significant over capacities), power prices are inclined to decrease in all
affected countries.68
Some EU member states have already taken the decision or already have
introduced some sort of capacity mechanism across Europe, for example:

68

See section 5.2.4 for the evaluation of international spill over effect.

Simulation of the future power market

84

Frontier Economics | September 2015



France is introducing a mechanism that obliges all electricity suppliers
to secure their supply with so-called “capacity-certificates”. These
certificates can either be purchased from capacity owners or be selfprocured in vertically-integrated entities.69



Belgium has introduced a strategic reserve by contracting a certain
amount of additional capacity which is not taking part in the energy
market but can be made available in periods of extreme scarcity.70



The United Kingdom has introduced a comprising CRM in which
total capacity is procured in central auctions.71

In the Base Case, we have taken the French capacity mechanism into account as
an additional capacity constraint in the model; installed capacity in France shall
not be lower than peak-load, corrected by de-rated interconnection capacity. For
the definition of capacity requirements in a CRM, it is crucial to take
interconnection and available foreign generation capacity into account.
Otherwise, the contribution of foreign capacities to domestic security of supply is
underestimated leading to over capacities in the market.
In order to analyse the potential impact of variations in the design of foreign
CRMs on the Dutch electricity market, we vary the calculation of the capacity
requirements in the French CRM. Furthermore, we assume a potential future
comprehensive CRM in Belgium (e.g. similar to the CRMs in France or UK). It
has to be noted that these variations are hypothetical and arbitrary and serve only
to illustrate potential x-border effects on the Dutch power market:



Implicit contribution of foreign capacity in the Base Case – According
to the French TSO, approximately 50% of installed interconnection capacity
is included in the calculation of the overall level of capacity obligations
(capacity requirements).72 Therefore, we have reduced the capacity demand
(peak load) by half of installed interconnection capacity. This leads to a longterm decrease of capacity requirements as more interconnection capacity is
built in the future:



95.2 GW in 2020; and



93.3 GW in 2035.

69

RTE (2014).

70

Elia (2014).

71

This CRM is not included in the model as capacity development is an exogenous assumptions for
the UK.

72

RTE (2014) p. 94; Additional information on the parameterisation of CRM is included in the
Annexe 2

Simulation of the future power market

September 2015 | Frontier Economics



85

Implicit contribution of foreign capacity in the sensitivity – In the
sensitivity, we assume that the contribution from foreign capacity to security
of supply in France is reduced to 20% of installed interconnection capacity
in the calculation of the CRM capacity requirements. This results in an
additional capacity requirement of





4 GW in 2020 (99.2 GW); and



7 GW in 2035 (100.3 GW).

Capacity demand in Belgium (sensitivity 4) – The capacity requirements
of the assumed (and hypothetical) CRM in Belgium are calculated similar to
the logic for France.: The capacity requirement is calculated as peak-load
minus implicit contributions of interconnection capacity of 20% of installed
interconnection:



13.9 GW in 2020; and



14.7 GW in 2035.

Figure 49 shows the definition of capacity requirements in France (left-hand
side) and Belgium (right-hand side).
Figure 49. Definition of CRM capacity requirements (Sensitivity 4)

CRM demand France
Peak Load

CRM demand (sensitivity)

CRM demand Belgium
CRM demand (base case)

Peak Load

120

CRM demand (sensitivity)

18
16

100

14
12

Sensitivity: capacity
demand on average 6 GW
higher than base case

60

40

GW

GW

80

10

No capacity requirement in
base case, capacity
requirement of ca. 13 GW in
sensitivity

8
6
4

20

2
0
2015

2020

2023

2025

2030

2035

0
2015

2020

2023

2025

2030

2035

Source: Frontier

Increased capacity requirement in other countries reduce capacity in
the Netherlands
Assuming higher capacity requirements in France and Belgium has the following
effects on the Dutch electricity market:



Higher retirement and later reactivation of gas-fired plants in the
Netherlands – Higher capacity requirements in France and Belgium have

Simulation of the future power market

86

Frontier Economics | September 2015

an adverse effect on capacities in the Netherlands. In the sensitivity, we
observe (compared to the Base Case)



500 MW of gas-fired that are mothballed in the Base Case are
decommissioned in the sensitivity; and



Mothballed gas-fired capacities are reactivated in later years: In the Base
Case, most mothballed power plants re-enter the market in the modelperiod of 2023. Higher capacity requirements in Belgium reduce the
need to reactive mothballed capacities in the Netherlands:


In the Base Case, ca. 6 GW are reactivated until the model period
2023 (representing the years 2023-2029); whereas



In this sensitivity, only 3 GW re-enter the market in the same
timeframe (until the model period 2023) while the remaining 2.5
GW are reactivated later.73

In total, operational gas capacity in the Netherlands is lower by up to 3 GW
(peaking in year 2023). The difference disappears in the long-run, after
reactivation of mothballed power plants.
Furthermore, slightly less investment takes place in DSR (load reduction) in
the Netherlands since price volatility and price peaks in the wholesale power
market are lower in the sensitivity than in the Base Case due to additional
power plant capacity abroad (Figure 50).
Across all modelled countries, we observe a positive net-effect on capacity in the
range of 5 to 9 GW (arising from more capacity in France and Belgium).

73

It has to be noted that we do not assume technological limits related to the possible duration of
power plant mothballing.

Simulation of the future power market

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

87

Figure 50. Sensitivity 4: Impact on installed capacity (NL)
Difference of operational capacity
(4 “increased foreign capacity” - Base Case)
0.5

DSR
other

solar
0.0

wind_on

-0.5

wind_off
ROR

GW

-1.0

hydro
-1.5

other_RES

-2.0

gas (decentral)

oil
-2.5

gas

-3.0

coal
lig

-3.5

2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

nuclear

Source: Frontier



Lower reserve margins in the Netherlands but no threat to security of
supply – Higher capacity levels in Belgium and France lead to more
decommissioning and motballing of power plants (see above). As this does
affect the Dutch system only after 2023, the short-term reserve margins are
not affected. In 2023, however, the reserve margin (without import-capacity)
decreases from 3.5 GW to 0.7 GW. Taking into account interconnection, the
margins remain highly positive (Figure 51).
Therefore, this reduction of operational capacity does not signal a major
threat to security of supply, as the mothballed capacity could still be
reactivated and sufficient import capacities are available. As in the Base Case,
no involuntary load-curtailment takes place.

Simulation of the future power market

88

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Figure 51. De-rated capacity balance (NL), Sensitivity 4

35

IC-import capacity

De-rated DSR
30

other
solar

25

wind_on
wind_off
ROR

GW

20

hydro

other_RES

15

gas (decentral)
oil

10

gas
coal

5

lig

nuclear

0
2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

Peak Load

Source: Frontier



Increasing imports due to higher foreign capacity – Even in the case of
higher capacity requirements in neighbouring countries, the Netherlands
would be able to ensure security of supply due to high levels of
interconnection capacity. However, electricity generation within the
Netherlands decreases and is substituted by foreign generation:



Power generation from gas and coal-fired plants decreases by 6 TWh
(10%) in 2023.



More imports and less exports to/from Belgium take place (see Annexe
2 for details).

Furthermore, access to foreign generation capacities has to be ensured also
in potential periods of scarcity.

Simulation of the future power market

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

89

Figure 52. Sensitivity 4: Impact on power generation (NL)
Difference of generation
(4 “increased foreign capacity” - Base Case)
8

Net-imports
other
solar

TWh

6

wind_on

4

wind_off

2

ROR
hydro

0

other_RES

-2

gas (decentral)
oil

-4

gas
-6

coal
lig

-8
2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

nuclear

Source: Frontier





3.4.6

Lower carbon dioxide emissions in the Netherlands – Due to lower
power generation within the Netherlands, CO2 emissions decrease by 3.3%
(2015-2039) compared to the Base Case. The net-effect across all modelled
regions, however, is slightly positive, with an increase of 0.2%, because of
more coal-fired power generation in Belgium.
Lower prices in the long-run due to surplus capacity – The short-term
effect of higher generation capacities in France and Belgium on Dutch
wholesale power prices is limited. In the long-run, however, prices
differences increase:



Prices are lower by less than 1 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh until 2023;



The differences increase to -1.3 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh) in; and



The impact is highest in 2035 with -4.9 EUR(real, 2013)/MWh due to
the absence of very high prices in Belgium which could be observed in
the Base Case to to a tight supply-demand balance.

Sensitivity 5 “Higher demand side response (DSR) potential”
In this section, we describe the assumptions and main results for sensitivity 5
“Higher demand side response (DSR) potential”.

Simulation of the future power market

90

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Motivation and assumptions
In the Base Case, an increasing potential for DSR (load reduction and load
shifting) is assumed. However, the future potential for DSR is very uncertain
especially in the long term.
In order to analyse the effect of variations in the long term DSR potential on the
Dutch electricity market, we model exemplary the effect of a higher potential for
demand side response in the long term. Compared to the Base Case, the load
shifting potential, i.e. heat-pumps and e-cars, is increased by 2 GW in 2020 and
additional 1 GW in 2030.74 The availability of DSR capacities in the model
depends on assumed hourly availability factors that are based on typical
consumption patterns for the different technologies (e.g. flexibility from heatpumps is only available in winter periods). The 3 GW assumed additional
investment potential (which is realised in the model only if it turns out to be
economic) expressed in “installed capacities” correspond to ca. 500 MW of
capacities de-rated according the average availability throughout the year.
The options to invest in load reduction capacities remain unchanged. Figure 53
shows the development of the assumed DSR investment potential in the Base
Case and in the sensitivity.

74

Installed capacity,

Simulation of the future power market

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

91

Figure 53. Development of DSR investment potential (de-rated capacity, excl.
existing capacities)
Load reduction

Load shift

2,500

2,000

MW

1,500

1,000

500

2015

2020

2023

2030

Sensitivity 5

Base Case

Sensitivity 5

Base Case

Sensitivity 5

Base Case

Sensitivity 5

Base Case

Sensitivity 5

Base Case

0

2035

Source: Frontier

Higher Demand Side Response potential with limited effect on power
market
In this sensitivity, higher potentials to invest in load shifting capacities are
assumed the model. The sensitivity captures uncertainties around the medium
and long term demand side flexibility potential in the Netherlands. Loadreduction potentials that exhibit lower investment but higher variable costs than
load-shifting remain the same. Assuming higher investment potentials for DSR
(load shifting) has the following effects on the power market:



Higher investments in DSR –As a result of the optimisation, the model
decides to invest more into the increased load-shifting flexibility and less
into load-reduction capacities (in the long-run). Based on the average
availability of those capacities throughout the year



500 MW additional load-shifting capacities enter the market; while



Investment in load-reduction capacities decreases by 140 MW(Figure
54).

Simulation of the future power market

92

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Figure 54. Sensitiviy 5 – impact on DSR investments*) (NL)
DSR capacity“Base Case”

DSR capacity “Sensitivity 5”

3,500

3,500
Load shifting (new)

Load shifting (new)

3,000

3,000

2,500

2,500

Load reduction (new)

2,000

Load reduction (new)

Load shifting (existing)

1,500

MW

MW

2,000
Load shifting (existing)
1,500

Load reduction (existing)

1,000

500

Load reduction (existing)

1,000

500

Total investment potential

0

Total investment potential
0

2013

2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

Source: Frontier
*) de-rated capacity according to assumed average yearly availability



Limited effect on power plant capacity and generation in the
Netherlands – Higher demand side response is not affecting installed
power generation capacity in the Netherlands since the assumed additional
DSR potential are not used to the full extent and because investment in load
reduction capacities decreases.
Power generation in the Netherlands is affected to a small extent. The
additional load shifting capacities reduce load in peak times and move
consumption to off-peak time. Therefore we observe





Less gas-fired power generation (- 240 GWh in 2030) and



higher imports (+180 GWh) and coal-fired power generation (+ 90
GWh) in the Netherlands.

Additional demand-side participation reduces price volatility –
Increased demand side response to wholesale power price signals decreases
the volatility of power prices: With more DSR capacity operational in the
long-run (2035), the average daily standard-deviation of Dutch wholesale
power prices decreseases from 13.2 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh to 11.7 EUR
(real, 2013)/MWh. Wholesale power price levels remain unchanged.

Simulation of the future power market

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

Figure 55. Sensitivity 5: Impact on price volatility (NL)
Base Case

average daily StDev (EUR(2013)/MWh)

14

5 “More demand side participation”

12
10
8
6
4
2
0

2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

Source: Frontier

Simulation of the future power market

93

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

4

95

Affordability of the electricity system
In this section, we summarise the results of the analyses regarding the
affordability of electricity supply. The analysis is largely based on the quantitative
market modelling described in the previous chapter and further analyses. We
identify key cost-drivers in the electricity system and examine the effect of these
cost-drivers on the costs to consumers and the profitability of intermittent
renewable energy sources and their development over time.
In the following, we describe the:

4.1



The development of costs of the electricity system (section 4.1);



The payments of consumers for the electricity supply and renewable
support (section 4.2); and



The economics of renewable energy sources in the electricity system
(section 4.3).

Costs of the electricity system
In this section, we provide estimations for the total system cost of the electricity
supply system in the Netherlands. The section aims at identifying the main cost
drivers in the electricity system. In this context, the results obtained in the
sensitivity analysis allow to analyse the impact of different power market
developments on the costs of the system.
It has to be noted that this analysis does not include all possible cost elements in
the power sector. For example, we do not take into account cost incurred by
enforcement or replacement investment in the distribution and transmission
network that are not directly linked to the growth of renewable energy sources.
The section is structures as follows:



Definition of costs of electricity generation (section 4.1.1);



Definition of grid costs related to RES-E growth (section 4.1.2); and



Quantitative analysis of system costs under different sensitivity
assumptions and the Base Case (section 4.1.3).

Main results of the system costs analysis



RES- E main future cost driver under the influence of Dutch politics –
Costs of intermittent renewable energy sources represent the highest share
of the analysed system costs. Across the modelling period, investment costs

Affordability of the electricity system

96

Frontier Economics | September 2015

and fixed operation and maintenance costs of RES-E amount to 39 bn.
EUR (real, 2013)75 which corresponds to 50% of total costs from 2015 until
2039.
Assuming less investment in RES-E in the short-term reduces total system
significantly by 10% (8 bn. EUR (real, 2013)). These savings could, however,
be (partially) offset by investments in other sectors or by “green energy
imports” from abroad required to meet the current or future targets
regarding the share of renewable energy in primary energy consumption.








4.1.1

Highest RES-E related grid-costs in the first years – Our indicative grid
cost estimation shows that the highest level grid costs related to renewable
expansion are incurred in the first years with the highest investment RES-E.
Cost share of conventional generation remains constant – Despite
lower shares of conventional thermal generation, the cost-share remains
more or less constant as short-run marginal costs of generation increase over
time. In total, fixed and variable costs of generation amount to 31.6 bn.
EUR (real, 2013) from 2015-2039 (~40% of total costs).
Changing variable costs of generation with limited effect on total costs
– Increasing or decreasing the variable costs of generation shows only a
limited effect on total system costs as savings are compensated with higher
imports.



Lower CO2-prices reduce total costs by 1 bn. EUR (real, 2013) or 1.4%.



Higher CO2-prices increase total costs by 1.1 bn. EUR (real, 2013) or
1.5%.



Higher fuel prices for coal and gas-fired generation increase total costs
by 1.6 bn. EUR (real, 2013) or 2.3%.

Spill-over effects from foreign CRMs with limited effect on costs –
International spill-over effects from foreign capacity remuneration
mechanisms increase total costs in the Netherlands by 0.3 bn. EUR (real,
2013) due to higher imports.

Costs of electricity generation
Cost of electricity generation is defined according to the cost elements
incorporated in the objective function of the power market model:

75

Cost figures are given as net present value from 2015 to 2039, 5% discount rate.

Affordability of the electricity system

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

97



Variable costs of generation include all cost directly incurred by the
production of electricity in the short term, i.e. fuel costs, costs of carbon
dioxide emissions and other variable costs of generation; both for
generation capacities and demand side response;



Fixed costs of conventional76 power plants include the costs for
investment77, mothballing, reactivation and fixed operation and
maintenance costs of conventional generation capacities and demand
side response;



Costs of power exchange with neighbouring countries include the
costs of electricity imports valued at the power price in the respective
country of import as well as the value of exports valued at the power
price in the Netherlands.



In addition to the cost elements captured by the simulation model, we
also include the cost of RES-E, i.e. investment costs and fixed
operation and maintenance costs of intermittent energy sources, i.e.
wind-onshore/offshore and solar PV. The costs of these technologies
are derived in section 4.3.2.

In total, costs of electricity generation amount to 60 bn. EUR (real, 2013),
measured as net present value from 2015-2039.78 With 38 bn. EUR (real, 2013),
the highest share of cost is incurred by the expansion of renewable energy
sources. Fixed costs of conventional power generation in the Netherlands
amount to 10 bn. EUR (real, 2013), variable costs to 21.7 bn. EUR (real, 2013).
Further information on the development of system costs is included in section
4.1.3.
It has to be noted that our analysis does not take the reinforcement or
replacement investments into account that are not directly linked to the
renewable expansion and therefore included in our approximation in section
4.1.2. Calculations from CE Delft suggest that the total investment requirements
in the electricity grid from 2010 to 2050 could amount up to 66 bn. EUR.79

76

Capacity costs also include costs of back-up capacity for intermittent renewable energy sources.

77

It has to be noted that not all cost of the electricity system are included in our estimation: For
instance, capital expenditure / investment costs of existing power plants are not included, as they
are regarded as “sunk costs” in the model. Furthermore, investment costs for replacement
investment in decentral CHP-generation are not included.

78

5% discount rate.

79

CE Delft (2010), p. 38.

Affordability of the electricity system

98

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Figure 56. Costs of electricity generation (Base Case)

Net present value (bn. EUR)

80

Costs of RES-E

70

60
37.8

50
40

30

Fixed costs
conventional

9.9

20
21.7

10

0

-9.2

-10
-20

Variable costs
of generation

Power
exchange

NPV (2015-2039)
Source: Frontier

4.1.2

Grid costs of RES-E expansion
In addition to direct investment costs of renewable energies (RES-E), the
integration of RES-E induces costs in the distribution and transmission grids. In
this section, we describe the indicative estimation of grid costs following RES-E
expansion in the Netherlands up to 2039. We estimate costs arising in



the distribution grid; as well as



the transmission grid.

Regarding costs in the transmission grid we focus on the costs of connecting
offshore wind parks to the main grid. The main Dutch transmission grid is
already well developed, and we assume that additional investments requirements
due to RES-E expansion are limited compared to the total system costs.
The effect of RES-E deployment on grid costs has not been quantified for the
Netherlands yet. For this reason, we base our indicative estimation of the costs
on the distribution grid level on a recent study that quantifies the effect of an
increasing RES-E share on distribution grid costs in Germany (BMWi (2014))
and on a meta study that compares grid costs induced by RES-E in different
countries (ECN (2014)).80

80

The detailed methodology and the underlying assumptions of our estimation approach are described
in the Annex 1

Affordability of the electricity system

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

99

Grid costs to accommodate increasing RES-E in-feed
For the following calculations, we use the average of the cost range indicated in
ECN (2014) (Figure 57). The publication provides cost figures for both



the Distribution grid for wind-onshore and solar PV; as well as



the transmission grid investment costs for wind-offshore.

Figure 57. Range of grid costs per MW installed RES-E capacity
Range

Average

grid costs per EUR/ MW installed capacity

1,600,000
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
On-shore wind

Off-shore wind

PV

Source: Frontier based on ECN (2014a).

In order to approximate the total investment requirements, we apply this average
cost estimator to the targeted expansion of renewable energy for wind-onshore,
offshore and solar PV. The resulting indicative cost estimate is shown in Figure
58 as the net-present value of aggregated grid costs from 2015 until 2039. Based
on this rough approximation, the investment needs in the grids81 amount to

81



6 bn. EUR for wind-offshore;



2.3 bn. EUR for wind-onshore; and



2 bn. EUR for solar PV.

These costs are for the distribution grid for solar PV and wind onshore and for connection to the
transmission grid for wind offshore. They include costs for grid extension on the distributional level
(mainly for wind on-shore and solar PV) and costs for the connection to the main onshore
transmission grid (mainly for wind offshore).

Affordability of the electricity system

100

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Figure 58. Total grid costs (Base Case), NPV (2015-2039)
12

bn. EUR (NPV 2015-2039)

10

8

Wind offshore,
5.8
6

4

Wind onshore,
2.3
2
Solar, 2.0
0

Source: Frontier

4.1.3

Costs of the electricity system
Based on the methodology described above, we identify the main cost-drivers in
the electricity system and their impact on system costs in the Base Case and the
sensitivities. It has to be noted that this model-based analysis does only include
the costs elements as defined above. Additional costs will be incurred by required
replacement and enforcement investments in the electricity grids. According to a
study by CE Delft, these costs could range between 15 and 50 bn. EUR from
2010 until 2050. 82
Costs of renewables main cost-driver in the future
The Base Case shows the following development of total system costs:



Costs of RES-E main cost driver in the future – The costs for renewable
energy sources represent the largest share of total system costs. Measured as
net present value (NPV)83 from 2015-2039, the RES-E amount to 38 bn.
EUR (real, 2013), which corresponds to approximately 50% of total costs
(Figure 59, right hand side). With increasing investment in renewable energy
sources in the future, the share of RES-E costs increases over time (Figure

82

CE Delft (2010), p. 38; Scenario A (excl. connection costs for wind-onshore and wind-offshore
installations).

83

5% discount rate.

Affordability of the electricity system

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

101

59, left hand side) from 33% in the short run to more than 50% in the longrun.
It has to be noted that capital costs of existing power plants are not included
in our calculation and regarded as sunk costs. In a calculation including
capital expenditure of existing (conventional) power plants, the share of
renewable costs in total system costs would be lower. The same is true for
regular grid costs that are not related to the grid expansion.



Constant share of costs from conventional generation – Variable costs
of generation, i.e. short-run marginal costs, represent around 30% of total
system costs (21.7 bn. EUR (real, 2013), fixed costs of generation, e.g. fixed
operation and maintenance costs, investment/reactivation and mothballing
costs, 12% (10 bn. EUR (real, 2013)).
Despite a decreasing share of conventional power generation in the Dutch
power sector, the costs of generation (fixed costs and variable costs) remain
more or less constant (~40%) as specific fuel costs and CO2-costs (in
EUR/MWh) increase over time.



Highest RES-E related grid costs in the short-term – Grid costs related
to the expansion of renewable energy sources amount to 13% of total
system costs (NPV 2015-2039).
The Base Case includes the highest investment in renewable electricity
sources in the first years. Therefore, incurred costs for grid investment
related to this expansion are higher in the first years.



Total cost reduction due to net-exports – As described in section 3.3.2,
the Netherlands are becoming net-exporter of power in the medium- to
long-term. Therefore, total system costs are reduced by the value of these
net-exports (-7 bn. EUR (real, 2013)).
Figure 59 shows positive costs in the first years with net-imports to the
Netherlands. In the medium- to long-term, this term becomes negative with
increasing net-exports.

Affordability of the electricity system

102

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Figure 59. System costs, Base Case
System costs (NPV 2015-2039)
80

Grid costs of
RES-E

10.1

70

6 6

Costs of RES-E

60
37.8

50

Fixed costs
conventional

9.9

Variable costs
of generation

21.7

0

-9.2

-10

3
2

20
10

5
4

40
30

7 7

bn. EUR (real, 2013)
(real, 2013)
bn. EUR

Net present value (bn. EUR)

Yearly system costs (bn. EUR)
8 8

90

Power
exchange

-20
NPV (2015-2039)

1

5
4

3
2

1
0

0 -1

-1 -2
-2 -3
2015

2015

20202020

2025
2023

2030
2030

2035 2035

Source: Frontier

Impact of the sensitivities on system costs
Based on the methodology described above, we estimate the impact of the
sensitivities on the system cost in the Netherlands compared to the Base Case.84
We observe the following effects of the sensitivities on total system costs:



Low CO2 prices decrease total costs in the NL – We observe a small
decline of system costs compared to the Base Case (- 1 bn. EUR (real, 2013))
especially due to lower variable power generation costs. Furthermore, fixed
costs of power generation decrease compared to the Base Case as the
nuclear power plant which is built in the Base Case in 2035 is replaced with
by a coal-fired power plant, which incurs lower fixed costs but higher
variable costs.
Despite higher costs of power imports, the net-effect of lower CO2-prices
remains negative.



High CO2 prices increase total costs in the NL – Higher prices for
carbon dioxide emissions increase system costs in the Netherlands. The
increase is foremost caused by higher variable costs of power generation.
Fixed costs of generation are not affected to a great extent.
Compared to the Base Case electricity net-imports are lower in the
sensitivity. This decreases costs associated with the power-exchange with
foreign countries. However the cost increasing effect of higher CO2 prices
dominates the effect of lower costs for electricity imports.

84

Shown as net present value (NPV) from 2015-2039 (5% discount rate).

Affordability of the electricity system

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

103

In sum, total system costs increase by 1.1 bn. EUR (real, 2013) in the
sensitivity compared to the Base Case.





Higher gas and coal prices increase variable costs of power supply in
the Netherland – Higher CO2 prices increase the costs of electricity supply
in this sensitivity by 1.1 bn. EUR (real, 2013) as variable costs of power
generation increase by 4 bn. EUR (real, 2013). Benefits from exporting
power decrease by 3 bn. EUR (real, 2013).
Significant decrease of total system costs with less wind power
capacities – A slow-down of wind power expansion can reduce system
costs significantly due to lower fixed costs for RES-E. As long as RES-E
technologies have to be supported there is a value in slowing down RES-E
expansions to later years. Costs can be reduced due to the fact that RES-E
investments take place later which allows for the following cost savings from
today’s perspective:



We expect significant learning curve effects for wind-offshore that
lower investment costs (2015 – 2030: - 26%)85; and



Higher time discounting of costs as investment takes place at a later
point in time.

According to our indicative calculation, costs incurred in the electricity
distribution and transmission grid are also reduced as less renewable energy
has to be integrated into the network. Therefore required grid expansions are
lower.
It has to be noted that this calculation does not include investment in other
sectors or “green energy” imports from abroad that could be required to
achieve the current political targets in 2023 or future renewable energy
targets.



Small cost increase due to international spill-over effects – Higher
capacity requirements in neighbouring countries with capacity mechanisms
reduce operational power plant capacity in the Netherlands (see section
3.4.5). Less electricity generation within the Netherlands reduces variable
costs of generation and, to a small extent, the fixed costs through higher
mothballing.
The cost reduction is balanced with higher net-imports leading to a slightly
positive net-effect of 0.3 bn. EUR (real, 2013).

85

The assumed development of investment costs is shown in Table 3.

Affordability of the electricity system

104



Frontier Economics | September 2015

Higher demand-side-response lowers total costs moderately – Total
costs of electricity supply decrease slightly by 0.1 bn. EUR (real, 2013), if
more demand-side–response (load shifting) is assumed to participate in the
market. The reduction arises from a small decrease of variable costs of
power supply, as gas-fired generation is partly substituted by coal-fired
power generation.

Figure 60 shows the difference in total system costs compared to the Base Case.
Negative values indicate a decrease of costs, positive values increasing costs.
Figure 60. Sensitivity impact on total system costs in the Netherlands
10

Grid costs of RES-E
5

Net present value ( bn. EUR)

Power exchange
1.1

1.6
0.3

0.0
0

0.0

-1.0

Fixed costs
conventional

-5

Fixed costs RES-E
-8.1

Variable costs of
generation

-10

Total system costs
-15
Base Case 1a “low CO2- 1b “high
2 “High fuel
prices”
CO2-prices”
prices”

3 "Slow
4 “Increased
growth of
foreign
wind power" capacity”

5 "Higher
DSR
potential"

Source: Frontier

4.2

Costs to final consumers
In this section, we analyse how consumer costs in the Base Case evolve over time
and whether the consumption of electricity or the costs of renewables are the
main cost driver. In addition, we assess how the different developments of the
power market analysed in the sensitivities affect consumer payments.
The section is structured as follows:



Estimation of costs to final consumers in the Base Case (section 4.2.1);
and



Impact of the sensitivities on consumer bills (section 4.2.2).

It has to be noted that the consumer costs of renewable supply are an outcome
of the modelling and do not correspond to RES-E budgets under the SDE +

Affordability of the electricity system

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

105

regime. For example, our model calculations do not take budgetary constraints,
e.g. support caps, into account.86
Main results of the cost analysis





Increasing costs to final consumers – Yearly costs to final consumers
increase by 25% from 7.5 bn. EUR(real, 2013)/a in 2015 to 9.4 bn.
EUR(real, 2013)/a in 2035. This increase is caused by the increase in
wholesale electricity prices due to higher variable costs of generation.
RES-E with significant share of costs – Our analysis shows that 25% (28
bn. EUR (real, 2013) of analysed costs to consumer are related to the growth
of RES-E, either through RES support or through RES-E related grid costs.
The costs incurred by RES-E decrease over time as profitability is improved
and less financial support is needed.
Assuming lower expansion of wind-energy (sensitivity 3 “Slow growth of
wind-power”) reduces costs to final consumers by 6%-point (7 bn. EUR
(real, 2013)), despite higher power prices and higher costs for electricity
supply.





4.2.1

Significant effect of variable costs of generation on consumer cost –
Total costs to final consumers are influenced by higher or lower short-run
marginal costs of generation to the following extent:



Lower CO2-prices reduce consumer costs by 4 bn. EUR (real, 2013) or
4%.



Higher CO2-prices increase total costs by 6 bn. EUR (real, 2013) or 5%.



Higher fuel prices for coal and gas-fired generation increase total costs
by 7 bn. EUR (real, 2013) or 6%.

International spill-over effects reduce costs of Dutch consumers –
Assuming higher capacity requirements in France and in Belgium leads to
lower cost to final consumers in the Netherlands. Final costs to consumers
decrease by 3 bn. EUR (real, 2013) compared to the Base Case. This cost
reduction, however, is to the detriment of consumers in the regions with
higher capacity requirements.

Estimation of costs to final consumers
This analysis aims at quantifying the cost burden on consumers, i.e.
86

Also, grid costs not incurred by the expansion of renewable-energy sources are not included, see
section 4.1.1.

Affordability of the electricity system

106

Frontier Economics | September 2015



How will consumer costs develop in the future; and



What is the key-cost driver from a consumer perspective?

Methodology
The analysis focusses on the costs arising from the consumption of electricity
and additional costs induced by the expansion of renewable electricity. Taxes and
levies are not part of this calculation. Further, it has to be noted that our analysis
does not include costs arising from enforcement or replacement investment in
the power grid that are not directly linked to the RES-E growth. We include the
following cost elements:





Costs for electricity – The costs of electricity supply that have to be paid by
consumers are calculated based on the hourly electricity consumption and
hourly power prices. We assume that wholesale power prices are passed on
without distortions or mark-ups through retail-services onto final
consumers. In addition, we do not distinguish between different consumer
groups, i.e. industry and households but estimate the cost burden for all
consumer groups in aggregate.
Costs of renewable electricity – The costs of renewable electricity (windonshore, wind-offshore and solar PV) are included as the difference between
the LCOE estimate describes in section 4.3.2) and the market revenues,
additional financial support needed to obtain the targeted capacity levels. We
assume that all additional RES-E costs are passed onto final consumers, i.e.
support caps are not included in the analysis. Furthermore, RES-E related
grid costs are included as additional cost element.

Increasing costs to final consumers in the Base Case
The Base Case shows increasing costs to final consumers:



Yearly costs increase by 25% from 2015-2035 – Yearly costs to final
consumers are increasing over time by 25% from 7.4 bn. EUR (real, 2013)/a
in 2015 to 9.3 bn. EUR(real, 2013)/a in 2035:



This increase is driven by higher electricity prices in the long-run. The
cost of for electricity supply (energy) increase by 55%.



At the same time, costs for renewable support and RES-E related grid
investments decrease by 31% as profitability of RES-E increases and
less additional support is needed (see next section 4.3 for detailed
information). Furthermore, the highest costs for grid investment are
incurred in the first years.

Affordability of the electricity system

September 2015 | Frontier Economics



107

RES-E costs represent 25% analysed cost elements – Costs incurred by
renewable energy sources in electricity supply (support costs and grid-related
costs) amount to 28 bn. EUR (real, 2013) from 2015-2039.87

Figure 61. Costs to final consumers in the Netherlands, Base Case
Costs to final consumers (NPV 2015-2039)

Yearly costs to final consumers (bn. EUR)
8

120

10
7

27.7

6

Costs for
RES-E

80
60
85.7

40

Costs for
electricity
supply

EUR (real, 2013)
(real, 2013)
EUR
bn. bn.

NPV, bn. EUR (real, 2013)

100

5

8

7.4

8.3

8.5

2023

2030

7.6

7

4 6
3 5
2 4
1 3
0

20

9.3

9

-1

2
1
0

-2

0

2015

2015

2020

2020

2025

2030

2035

2035

Source: Frontier

4.2.2

Impact of the sensitivities on consumer bills
In this section, we summarise the results of the sensitivities on costs to final
consumers:







87

Lower cost burden on final consumers due to lower CO2-prices –
Lower costs for carbon dioxide emissions decrease the level of wholesale
prices (see section 3.4.1). Consequently, consumers need to pay less for the
supply of electricity. On the other hand, costs for renewable support
increase as the price decrease also results in lower market revenues. In sum,
costs are 3.7 bn. EUR (real, 2013) (3.2%) lower than in the Base Case.
Increasing consumer bills due to high CO2-prices – Higher costs for
carbon dioxide emissions lead to the opposite effect: Power prices and costs
for electricity supply increase. At the same time, revenues of intermittent
renewables increase which leads to lower RES-E support costs.
Nevertheless, consumers have to pay more in this sensitivity. Consumer bill
increases by 6.1 bn. EUR (real, 2013) (5.4%).
High fuel prices reduce RES-E support costs but increase consumer
bills – Sensitivity 2 yields comparable results with higher power price due to
higher short-run marginal costs of conventional power plants. The costs of
RES-E decrease but the net-effect remains positive with an increase of costs
Net-present value, 5% discount rate.

Affordability of the electricity system

108

Frontier Economics | September 2015

to final consumers by 7.7 bn. EUR (real, 2013) (6.8%) compared to the Base
Case.



Slow development of wind-energy reduces burden on final consumers
– Sensitivity 3 “slow growth of wind-energy” shows a moderate increase in
power prices leading to higher costs for electricity supply to final consumers.
At the same time, the growth of wind-installations is slowed down compared
to the Base Case. This results in lower costs for renewables as higher
learning rates are realised with postponed investments in renewables. In
addition, less grid-enforcement is necessary and grid-related costs decrease.
In sum, costs to final consumers decrease by 6.5 bn. EUR (real, 2013)
(5.8%).
It has to be noted that this calculation does not include investment in other
sectors or for “green energy” imports that could be required to achieve the
current or future political targets for renewable energies.



Decreasing costs for Dutch consumers due to increased foreign
capacity – The increase of generation capacity in France and Belgium in
sensitivity 4 reduces power prices. This leads to lower costs to final
consumers in the Netherlands as the cost incurred by the additional capacity
do not pose an additional burden on Dutch consumers. They are borne by
consumers in the regions with explicit capacity payments.
Support costs for RES-E increase moderately without effect on the netreduction of costs. In total, costs to final consumers decrease by 2.4 bn.
EUR (real, 2013) (2.1%).



Higher demand side response without major effect on consumer costs
– Higher DSR has only limited effects on average power prices in the
Netherlands. Therefore, there are no significant changes to the cost burden
on final consumers.

Affordability of the electricity system

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

Figure 62. Impact of the sensitivities on the costs to final consumers
… for electricity supply

… for RES-E

Total payments

NPV (bn. EUR, real 2013)

15

10

7.7
6.1

5

0

0.1

0.0
-2.4
-3.7

-5

-6.5

-10
Base Case

3 "Slow
1a “low CO2- 1b “high CO2- 2 “High fuel
4 “Increased
growth of wind
prices”
prices”
prices”
foreign
power"
capacity”

Source: Frontier

Affordability of the electricity system

5 "Higher
DSR
potential"

109

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

4.3

111

Economics of RES-E
The Netherlands are aiming for a significant increase of renewable energy
sources in electricity supply over the next decades (see section 3.2.4). In this
section, we analyse whether these additional capacities will be able to finance
themselves on the wholesale market, i.e. whether the market revenues will be
sufficient to cover their levelised costs of electricity or whether additional
financial support is required in the future.
We analyse the future profitability of intermittent renewable energy sources
(wind-onshore, wind-offshore and PV). We describe



The resulting market revenues of intermittent RES-E under the
different market assumptions (section 4.3.1);



The assumptions regarding costs of RES-E (section 4.3.2); and



Our assessment of the future profitability of intermittent RES-E
(section 4.3.3)

Main results regarding the economics of renewable electricity







4.3.1

Decreasing market values of renewables – Despite increasing power
prices, market values (as % of base price) of renewables can be expected to
decrease with an assumed increase of in-feed: Increasing simultaneous infeed from wind or solar PV leads to higher negative correlation of power
prices and renewable in-feed. Revenues per MWh, however, will increase
from 2015 until 2035.
Wind-onshore and offshore more profitable than solar PV – Based on
our cost estimate, we expect more promising future profitability for windonshore and offshore compared to solar PV. Nevertheless, there remains the
need for additional funding for all examined RES-E technologies.
Importance of effective internalisation of carbon dioxide emissions –
The observed effects of higher/lower CO2-price on the profitability of
intermittent renewables illustrates the importance of an effective emission
trading scheme in order to internalise climate externalities of carbon
emission. With high CO2-prices, the profitability of RES-E increases
significantly whereas low CO2-prices lead to a growing financing gap.

Market revenues of intermittent renewables
Market revenues of intermittent renewable energy sources are determined by



the wholesale power price level; and

Affordability of the electricity system

112

Frontier Economics | September 2015



the correlation between renewable in-feed and hourly power prices.

We observe an increase in electricity prices in the Base Case and the sensitivities
compared to today’s price levels. Ceteris paribus, this should lead to higher
revenues per generated MWh of renewable electricity. With increasing
simultaneous in-feed from renewable energy sources, the market value of the
generated electricity is reduced and revenues per MWh decline over time for
some energy sources:



Wind power and solar PV capacities are not dispatched like other power
plant, but depend on the availability of wind and solar radiation.



With growing renewable capacity, in-feed in hours with high wind or
solar radiation increases significantly, as all installations are exposed to
the same wind pattern or radiation. This leads to increasing negative
correlation between hourly in-feed from renewables and hourly
wholesale price (see Table 2).

Table 2. Pairwise correlation of hourly in-feed and hourly electricity price*)
2015

2035

Wind-onshore

-0.20

-0.23

Wind-offshore

-0.13

-0.22

Solar PV

0.10

-0.09

Source: Frontier
*) excluding negative prices

Decreasing market values in the Base Case
With increasing negative correlation between power prices and renewable infeed, the average market value88, which expresses the value of RES-E power
compared to the yearly average base price of RES-E power production decreases:



88

Solar PV – Solar PV initially exhibits market values >1 and therefore a
higher value than base-load power generation (and positive correlation
between in-feed and power price), as the highest in-feed occurs around
midday, a time period with high power demand compared to other hours.
With increasing in-feed from PV installation, the formerly observed price

The market value of renewable is defined as relationship between hourly in-feed of renewables
valued at the hourly price and the in-feed of renewables valued at the yearly average base price.

Affordability of the electricity system

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

113

peaks around midday vanish and, in the long-run, market values decrease to
slightly < 1.



Wind-onshore and -offshore – Both, wind-onshore and offshore, exhibit
market values <1 in 2015, as wind in-feed occurs in hours with lower load
compared to solar PV, e.g. at night. With increasing simultaneous in-feed
from wind-onshore and wind-offshore respectively, the average value of
wind power generation decreases to around 80% of the yearly average base
price.

Figure 63. Market values of intermittent RES-E
Wind-onshore

Wind-offshore

Solar-PV

2020

2023

2030

120%

100%

market value (%)

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
2015

2035

Source: Frontier

Increasing revenues for solar PV, long-term decrease of wind revenues
Both effects, increasing wholesale prices but at the same time decreasing market
values, yield the following net effect on revenues.



Increasing revenues for wind power – In the Base Case, revenues for
wind onshore and offshore increase until 2023. Thereafter, revenues
decrease slightly due to lower market values, but remain higher than in 2015:



Wind-onshore average revenues increase from 37 EUR (real,
2013)/MWh in 2015 to 47EUR (real, 2013)/MWh in 2023; thereafter,
revenues decrease to 43 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh; and



Wind-offshore average revenues increase from 37 EUR (real,
2013)/MWh in 2015 to 49 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh in 2023; thereafter,
revenues decrease to 46 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh.

Affordability of the electricity system

114



Frontier Economics | September 2015

Growing revenues for solar PV – Solar PV on the other hand shows
increasing revenues also in the long-run:



Steep increase from 43 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh in 2015 to 54 EUR
(real, 2013) /MWh in 2023;



Moderate increase to 57 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh in 2035.

Figure 64. Revenues of intermittent RES-E (Base Case)
Wind-onshore

Wind-offshore

PV

60
54.3
48.8

EUR (real, 2013)/ MWh

50

40

43.2

43.1

37.0

41.60

56.8
53.8

49.0
46.4

45.7

43.97

42.94

2030

2035

47.39

36.15
30

20

10

0
2015

2020

2023

Source: Frontier

RES-E benefit from high fuel and CO2-prices
The profitability of RES-E is determined by the development of power prices.
Therefore, sensitivities with increasing short-run marginal costs of generation and
consequently higher power prices exhibit in an increase in of RES-E.





Benefits from high fuel costs – Intermittent renewable energy sources
benefit from high fuel and CO2-prices as variable costs of conventional
generation and therefore power prices increase. We observe a significant
effect on RES-E revenues in the sensitivities with higher CO2 (+ 12% in
2035) and fuel prices (+13% in 2035), which include an increase of short-run
marginal costs of conventional power generation.
Reduced revenues with low CO2-prices – Compared to higher CO2prices, lower costs for carbon emission decrease the level of power prices
and therefore lead to lower revenues of RES-E. In 2035, revenues are 18%
lower than in the Base Case.

Affordability of the electricity system

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

115

Figure 65 indicates the range of observed revenues for wind-onshore, windoffshore and solar PV from 2015 until 2035 across the sensitivities:



Solar PV shows the highest increase of revenues with up to 67
EUR(real, 2013)/MWh in 2035 in sensitivity 2 “high fuel prices”;



Wind-onshore and offshore exhibit increasing revenues until 2023 with
up to 56 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh for wind-onshore and 58 EUR(real,
2013)/MWh for wind-offshore. After that, revenues decrease in all
sensitivities.

Figure 65. Comparison of revenues (all cases)
Range of revenues (Senstivities)

Revenues (Base Case)

80

EUR(real, 2013) / MWh

70
60
50
40
30
20
10

Wind_on

Wind_off

2035

2030

2023

2020

2015

2035

2030

2023

2020

2015

2035

2030

2023

2020

2015

0

PV

Source: Frontier

4.3.2

Levelised cost of RES-E (LCOE)
The development of investment costs as well as operation and maintenance costs
of intermittent RES-E is associated with high uncertainty. The cost development
also depends on the specifics of the technology:



Wind-onshore represents a quite mature technology with the highest
learning rates already realised in the past;



Wind-offshore instead is less mature in terms of technological
experience. Therefore, more significant learning rates can be expected
for the future.

Affordability of the electricity system

116

Frontier Economics | September 2015



Solar PV89 has shown substantial learning rates in the past, especially
regarding the costs of solar modules. Further learning can be expected
in the future.

In detail, the assumptions regarding the development of renewable costs are
derived as follows:





Initial investment cost according to SDE (+) – We derive our initial
investment cost levels for 2015 from the analysis of support levels within the
SDE (+) support scheme.90 We use the following specific investment costs
(2015) for our analysis:



Wind-onshore: 1,350 EUR(real, 2013)/kWe;



Wind-offshore: 2,600 EUR(real, 2013)/kWe; and



Solar PV: 1,030 EUR(real, 2013)/kWe.

Learning curve according to IEA World Energy Outlook – The
assumptions on the future development of investment costs are based on
the learning curves indicated in the IEA World Energy Outlook (IEA, 2014).
The IEA expects a reduction of capital costs from 2015 to 2035 of



7 % for wind-onshore;



30 % for wind-offshore; and



34 % for solar PV.

We also apply the fixed operation and maintenance costs for the RES-E
installations as published in the WEO (2014).91 This results in the following
assumptions for the development of overnight-investment costs (Table 3):

89

The majority of Dutch solar PV installations are roof-top installations which exhibit higher specific
investment costs per MW compared to open-space installation.

90

ECN (2014b).

91

Fixed operation and maintenance as % of investment costs: wind-onshore 2.5%; wind-offshore
3.5%, solar PV 1.3%.

Affordability of the electricity system

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

117

Table 3. Assumed RES-E investment costs
EUR (2013)/MW

2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

Wind-onshore

1,350

1,300

1,295

1,270

1,250

Wind-offshore

2,600

2,195

2,120

1,940

1,820

Solar PV

1,030

830

800

730

675

Source: Frontier based on ECN (2014b) and IEA (2014c)

Based on the assumptions described above, we derive the levelised costs of
electricity in EUR (real, 2013)/MWh, i.e. the costs of generating one MWh of
(Figure 66):

92



Annual fixed costs per MW installed capacity include annuitized
investment costs92 and yearly operation and maintenance expenses;



Annual fixed costs are translated into costs per MWh electricity by
applying the yearly utilisation rates for each technology and add
assumed balancing costs of 2.5 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh.

We assume a standard depreciation period of 20 years and an interest rate of 5%.

Affordability of the electricity system

118

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Figure 66. Calculation of levelised cost of electricity (LCOE)
Overnight investment costs [€/kW]
x

Interest rate [%]

x

Depreciation [a]

Annuitized investment costs [€/kWa]
+

Fixed O&M costs [€/kWa]

Annual fixed costs [€/kWa]
/

Average utilisation [h/a]

+

Balancing costs [€/kWh]

Levelised cost of electricity [€/kWh]
Source: Frontier

Decreasing costs of electricity generation for all technologies
Based on the methodology described above, we estimate the following
development of generation costs for intermittent renewables:





Moderate decrease of costs for wind-onshore – Wind-onshore exhibits
the lowest LCOE of the examined technologies in the short-term. As windonshore represents a more mature technology, future learning rates are
limited and therefore LCOE decrease only moderately in the long-run



from 63.4 EUR(real, 2013)/MWh in 2015; to



59 EUR(real, 2013)/MWh in 2035.

Significant cost reduction for wind-offshore93 – Compared to windonshore, we expect significant cost reductions for wind-offshore in the
future. :



82.8 EUR(real, 2013)/MWh in 2015; and



58.6 EUR(real, 2013)/MWh in 2035.

In the long-run, LCOE of wind-offshore are more or less equal to costs of
wind-onshore power generation. This can on the one-hand be explained
with larger turbine sizes which in return lower the specific investment costs

93

Costs for grid-connection are not included in this calculation.

Affordability of the electricity system

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

119

per MWe. On the other hand, wind-offshore exhibits higher utilisation rates
which reduces the costs per generated MWh.



Solar PV most expensive from a system perspective – Solar PV (rooftop) exhibits the highest costs of electricity generation in the short- and in
the long-run. Despite the assumption of significant learning rates in the
future, costs per MWh remain high compared to the other technologies.
This is driven by a comparably low utilisation rate of around 10%. Estimated
costs are



119.5 EUR(real, 2013)/MWh in 2015; and



79.2 EUR(real, 2013)/MWh in 2035.

Figure 67. Development of LCOE
Wind-onshore

Wind-offshore

PV

140

EUR(real, 2013) /MWh

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

Source: Frontier

Remaining uncertainty about future cost reductions
The baseline cost assumption for the following analysis is based on assumed
learning curves from the World Energy Outlook (2014). This, of course,
represents one of many possible sources for the development of investment
costs for renewables. Other sources for example indicate lower future cost
reductions94 while other studies foresee higher learning effects in the future.95

94

E.g. CBP (2015)

95

E.g DLR/Frauenhofer IWES/IFNE (2012).

Affordability of the electricity system

120

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Beside uncertain development of market revenues, this causes additional
uncertainty for the analysis of future profitability of RES-E. Figure 68 illustrates
an alternative development of LCOE based on DLR/Frauenhofer IWES/IFNE
(2012).
Figure 68. Alternative development of LCOE
LCOE

LCOE (high learning effects)

140

EUR(real, 2013) / MWh

120
100
80
60
40
20

Wind_on

Wind_off

2035

2030

2023

2020

2015

2035

2030

2023

2020

2015

2035

2030

2023

2020

2015

0

PV

Source: Frontier

4.3.3

Future profitability of intermittent renewables
In the following, we compare the estimated costs of RES-E (baseline learning
curve) with the expected market-revenues. Despite significant cost reductions in
the long-run and increasing wholesale prices for electricity; our analysis shows
that investments in wind-onshore, wind-offshore and solar PV will not be
profitable by itself until 2035.
Our analysis takes an economic perspective on profitability of RES-E, i.e.
includes costs and revenues from a system-wide perspective. The results can
differ from a single investors’ perspective that takes other benefits, e.g. from netmetering of consumption, into account. Furthermore, costs of grid-connection
are not included in our profitability analysis.
Wind-onshore and offshore more profitable than solar PV
Based on our analysis, we conclude that the estimated LCOE of intermittent
renewables are not covered by the market revenues. Figure 69 shows the
development of market revenues in the Base Case (red triangle) and in all
sensitivities (grey area) compared to the LCOE estimate (blue bar). The dashed
red line indicates the development of LCOE assuming higher learning rates and

Affordability of the electricity system

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

121

shows that RES-E investment could be profitable in the long-run if even higher
learning effects are realised.
Figure 69. Profitability of intermittent RES-E
Range of revenues (Senstivities)
LCOE (high learning effects)

LCOE
Revenues (Base Case)

140

EUR(real, 2013) / MWh

120
100
80
60
40
20

Wind_on

Wind_off

2035

2030

2023

2020

2015

2035

2030

2023

2020

2015

2035

2030

2023

2020

2015

0

PV

Source: Frontier

According to our calculations, LCOE of new investments are not covered by
market revenues until 2035. The financing gap, however, decreases in the longrun with cost reduction and increasing revenues in the Base Case:





Wind-onshore close to profitability in the medium-term – Windonshore shows the lowest financing gap in the short- and medium-term.
Because of decreasing market revenues and more or less constant LCOE,
the financing gap stays almost constant in the long-run:



27 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh in 2015;



14 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh in 2023; and



16 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh.

Wind-offshore close to wind onshore in the long-term based on
assumed future cost-reductions – Wind-offshore require more financing
support than wind-onshore in the short-term. In the long-run, however,
LCOE for wind-offshore may decrease significantly. At the same time,
market revenues increase. In sum, this leads to a reduction of the financing
gap from



46 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh in 2015



13 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh in 2035.

Affordability of the electricity system

122



Frontier Economics | September 2015

Highest financing gap for solar PV – The relative gap between LCOE
per MWh electricity production and the respective market revenues amounts
to 76 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh in 2015 for solar PV. With increasing revenues
and decreasing costs in the long-run, the gap decreases to 22 EUR (real,
2013)/MWh in 2035.

CO2-price and fuel prices drive profitability of RES-E
Depending on the sensitivity and the respective development of market revenues,
the financing gap increases or decreases compared to the Base Case:





RES-E more profitable with high CO2-prices – As shown in section
4.3.1, we observe the highest market revenues in sensitivities 1b “high CO2prices”and 2 “high fuel prices”. Consequently, these two sensitivities exhibit
the lowest - but still positive - financing gap of



11 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh in 2035 for wind-onshore;



7 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh in 2035 for wind-offshore ; and



16 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh96 for solar PV.

Low CO2-prices result in high additional needs for RES-E financing –
With lower prices for carbon emissions the need for additional financial
support for renewable electricity increases. Assuming CO2-prices of 12
instead of 30 EUR(real, 2013)/tCO2 leads to long-term financing gap of



24 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh in 2035 for wind-onshore;



22 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh in 2035 for wind-offshore; and



32 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh in 2035 for solar PV.

It has to be noted that our estimation does not represent an upper limit of
possible revenues for intermittent renewables. If, for example, fuel prices
increase even higher than anticipated in our sensitivity; or if CO2-prices increase
at the same time as fuel prices, revenues of RES-E could increase significantly,
leading to higher profitability.

96

Solar PV financing gap of 12 EUR (real, 2013)/MWh in sensitivity 2 “high fuel prices”

Affordability of the electricity system

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

123

Side note: Economics of small scale PV and benefits from net-metering
In this section, we have analysed the profitability of intermittent renewables from
a system perspective, i.e. how expected market revenues compare to future costs
of RES-E. According to the analysis, solar PV represents the technology that
requires the highest financial support of the technologies analysed as of today, i.e.
is currently the least efficient technology from a system perspective.
The decision of an individual investor to invest in RES-E, however, may deviate
from the system perspective because of



Existing renewable support payments; and



Benefits from own-consumption of produced electricity; especially in
combination with net-metering regarding the assessment of taxes and
levies.

In the following, we assess the profitability of a small scale solar PV installation
under different cases and assumptions97:




Case 1 – Renewable Support: We assume that support levels are set to
meet the levelised costs of electricity and that produced electricity that is fed
into the power grid is remunerated accordingly.
Case 2 – Market based remuneration: We assume that no renewable
support mechanism is in place and that electricity production is remunerated
according to market prices.98

In order to assess the profitability of the investment, we compare the total
consumer bill under two different assumptions to the counterfactual of no
investment, i.e. the case when 100% of consumption is served via the grid:



PV installation with 30% own-consumption; taxes and levies99 based on
net-metering; i.e. total consumption less own-consumption



PV installation with 30% own-consumption; taxes and levies based on
gross-metering; i.e. total consumption, and

Significant incentives for investment in the case of net-metering and
renewable support

97

Net-present value over 20 years of lifetime;5% discount rate.

98

Power prices according to Base Case calculations.

99

Assumptions: installed capacity 10 kWp; utilisation rate of 10.3%; own-consumption of 30%; yearly
electricity consumption 4.500 kWh; constant (real) levels of the electricity tax (0.1196 €/kWh) and
the sustainable energy levy (0.0036 €/kWh), excl. 21 % VAT; tax threshold of 311.84 €/a.

Affordability of the electricity system

124

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Our analysis shows that significant incentives to invest in small scale PV
installations arise from net-metering of consumption: The household’s bill for
electricity consumption in the case of net-metering is significantly lower than in
the counterfactual of no investment. This incentives to invest in solar PV
disappears in the case of gross-metering, as the amount of taxes and levies that
have to be paid increase and the investment becomes unprofitable (negative
benefits from investing in solar PV, Figure 70).
Figure 70. Benefits of net-metering (case 1 “Renewable support”)
net-metering

gross-metering

NPV over 20 years (EUR, real 2013)

6,000
4,000
2,000
0
-2,000
-4,000
-6,000

-8,000
-10,000
2015

2020
Year of investment

2030

Source: Frontier

PV for households attractive without support only in the long-run and if
net-metering is maintained
In the case without RES-E support, small scale solar PV installations are
economical in the future (2030) only if net-metering is maintained. In the case of
gross-metering, the total household bill exceeds the payments in the
counterfactual of no investment in all years analysed, i.e. benefits are always
negative (Figure 71).
Figure 71. Benefits of net-metering (case 2 “market based remuneration”)

Affordability of the electricity system

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

net-metering

gross-metering

NPV over 20 years (EUR, real 2013)

6,000
4,000
2,000
0
-2,000

-4,000
-6,000
-8,000
-10,000
2015

2020
Year of investment

2030

Source: Frontier

Affordability of the electricity system

125

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

5

127

Reliability of the electricity system
In this section, we analyse whether and under which conditions the Dutch
electricity system is able to provide for security of supply under the current
market framework. In particular, we discuss if the current market design provides
sufficient incentives to keep installed capacities, which are required to ensure
security of supply, in operation and incentives to invest in new power generation
capacities as well as in demand-side-response in the future
The electricity market design in the Netherlands and most other European
countries is so far based on the principle of an “energy-only market” (EOM). In
an EOM, investments for electricity production are primarily financed through
energy-based prices (in €/MWh), which incorporate an implicit payment for
available capacity. In this context, various market stakeholders wonder whether a
market design based on the EOM principle generates sufficient incentives to
ensure mid- and long-term security of electricity supply. Some stakeholders have
suggested the introduction of a CRM. Through a policial intervention, a CRM
would induce explicit capacity payments (e.g. in €/MW per year) that would
incentivise additional capacity and thus security of supply. Some of the
neighbouring countries of the Netherlands, for instance Belgium, France or
Great Britain, are currently introducing CRMs.
The implementation of a CRM is a fundamental intervention into the electricity
market. Generally, market interventions lead to distortions and can therefore,
from the perspective of economic efficiency, only be justified in the presence of
market imperfections that prevent an efficient market outcome. In the context of
CRMs, the European Commission requires any Member State who plans to
introduce a CRM to clearly demonstrate the reasons why the market cannot be
expected to deliver adequate capacity.100 Otherwise, the CRM will be treated as
unjustified State Aid.
In the following, we thoroughly investigate the performance of the current
Dutch electricity market design in the following steps:

100



We describe how an idealised EOM provides reliability (section 5.1);



We describe potential market imperfections in real-world EOM, assess
their relevance for the Dutch electricity market and derive resulting
policy implications (section 5.2); and



We derive our conclusion (section 5.3).

European Commission (2014).

Reliability of the electricity system

128

5.1

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Performance of an ideal EOM
In this section we describe the performance of an ideal EOM, abstracting in a
first step from market imperfections. The influence of potential market
imperfections on the capability of an EOM to ensure security of supply will be
discussed in section 5.2.

5.1.1

Demand and supply in an EOM
On the electricity market, demand (from consumers) meets supply (from power
generators). Compared to other markets, the electricity market faces a number of
specifics. The demand-side of an EOM is formed by electricity consumers
(households, commerce and industry). Except for large consumers, electricity
consumers normally buy electricity via suppliers. These procure the electricity on
the wholesale electricity market, directly from an electricity producer or produce
the electricity themselves. Large consumers (electricity-intensive industry) may
buy electricity directly on the wholesale market, from producers through bilateral
contracts or produce the electricity themselves. While some consumers, e.g. from
the electricity-intensive industry, can react to (hourly) changes in wholesale
electricity prices, e.g. by reducing their consumption during hours of high prices
or by shifting consumption towards hours when prices are lower, other
consumers (especially households and small industries) cannot (yet) react to
hourly price changes on the wholesale market. Final electricity prices for small
consumers usually don’t reflect hourly wholesale prices. Instead, end-consumer
prices are often constant in all hours of the year and reflect only an average
wholesale energy price (the average procurement costs of the supplier) per year.
Suppliers in an EOM are producers that – under perfect competition and as long
as there is no scarcity in the market – bid electricity at short-term marginal
generation costs (especially costs of fuels and CO2 certificates in the case of
thermal power plants) into the market. Investment and fixed operation costs do
not influence their bids, as these costs can be considered as “sunk costs” within
the short trade horizon (day-ahead or intraday trade) and are therefore irrelevant
for their production decision.
In addition, the wholesale electricity market allows suppliers and buyers to
optimize their positions: For example, an industrial consumer with own power
production will rather buy electricity from the wholesale market if electricity
prices are lower than his own variable production costs.
In summary, in competitive wholesale electricity markets, producers bid
electricity at variable (marginal) production costs and consumers (often via
suppliers) signal their willingness to pay for electricity. Aggregated bids of
producers form the supply curve (“merit order curve”), and the aggregated
willingness to pay of consumers forms the market demand curve. The market
clears at the intersection of supply and demand curve. These supply and demand

Reliability of the electricity system

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

129

curves are for example aggregated by organised power exchanges, in the
Netherlands e.g. by APX. For power traded on the exchange, the corresponding
market clearing price has to be paid for all units of electricity that have been
bought during the auction (“uniform pricing”). This mechanism leads to an
efficient (short-term) production and allocation of electricity in every period (e.g.
hour). Clearing prices and quantities vary on an hourly basis, depending on
specific supply and demand situations.
5.1.2

Recovering investment and fixed costs in an EOM
In a pure energy-only-market (EOM), electricity is in general financially and
physically traded in energy units (kWh). For example, on forward, day-ahead and
intraday markets of power exchanges, there is no explicit remuneration for
holding capacity available. However, in this market design capacity is
remunerated by margins in the energy market or indirectly by trading of back-upcapacity, as explained in the following.
In most periods, the wholesale electricity price corresponds to the marginal
generation costs of the last unit that is still needed to clear the market. These
marginal generation costs can either correspond to the variable costs of a power
plant or to the (opportunity) costs of a flexible consumer for reducing or shifting
his demand.
However, also in an EOM it is possible for power plants or demand flexibilities
to achieve profit margins that exceed variable costs:




101

Infra-marginal plants – In every period, all infra-marginal capacities101
obtain profit margins as the power price exceeds their marginal costs (see
Figure 72).
Plants can be infra-marginal because they are run with different fuel types or
have different (technical) efficiencies than the marginal (price-setting)
capacities. In addition, it is possible that plants that are marginal today (as
they are less efficient than other, newer plants) have obtained enough profit
margins needed to recover their fixed costs in the past, when they have been
relatively more efficient than old plants at that point of time.

These are suppliers or flexible producers that have lower variable costs than the most-expensive
plant or demand flexibility option that is still needed to clear the market - the marginal “supplier”.

Reliability of the electricity system

130

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Figure 72. Infra-marginal rents

Producer
surplus

Source: Frontier economics



Marginal plants - In most periods, the marginal supplier does not obtain
profit margins as prices correspond to his short term marginal costs.
However, two mechanisms permit that even the marginal plant can obtain
profit margins during some periods:



Scarcity rents because of demand flexibility – If supply is scarce, the
market can be cleared by consumers that reduce or shift demand (e.g.
energy industry reducing good production) – often at high prices. If
these consumers can reduce or shift demand without high investment
or fixed operation costs to implement the demand flexibility, these units
do not need to achieve any infra-marginal rents. All other power plants
and demand flexibilities with investment costs can achieve “inframarginal” rents during these periods.



Scarcity rents via “Peak load pricing” – If supply is scarce and not
enough flexible demand is available, some suppliers get pivotal, i.e.
demand cannot be met without their capacities. Therefore, within these
situations, even in a perfectly competitive market these suppliers can
include fixed costs when setting their price bids because – from a static
perspective – these suppliers cannot be replaced by a less costly option.

Figure 73 illustrates how marginal suppliers achieve rents during scarcity
periods.

Reliability of the electricity system

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

131

Figure 73. Scarcity rents in an EOM

Scarcity
rent
Producer
surplus

Source: Frontier economics.

In addition, EOMs also include implicit elements of capacity remuneration. The
fundamental reason why capacity has a value – and therefore also a price – in
EOMs is that electricity supply contracts between suppliers and end-consumers
include an obligation to actually deliver the electricity in any occasion. If suppliers
fail to supply electricity to their customers, they risk paying imbalance prices to
the system operator (in the Netherlands to the transmission grid operator
TenneT which has to balance the electricity system physically in any point in
time). In order to hedge against paying imbalance prices, suppliers will hold
available own capacities, engage in long-term contracts as part of their electricity
procurement strategy, buy back-up capacities from other generators/suppliers or
buy options to hedge against potential deviations between their supply obligation
and their procured electricity. In general, these contracts include payments for
capacities.
The fundamental prerequisite for effective incentives for power generators,
suppliers and consumers to back up their electricity requirements with reliable
capacity even in periods with substantial scarcity on the EOM is that the threat of
paying very high prices for imbalances (i.e. shortage in covering the electricity) is
substantial and that market participants take for granted that they have to pay
imbalance prices in any event – the system of punishing imbalances (i.e.
insufficient power supply/procurement in scarcity periods) has to be credible, the
“penalty” of paying imbalance prices has to be sufficiently high.
Through these mechanisms, all capacities, including the marginal capacity cannot
only recover their variable costs but also amortize their investment costs (via
scarcity rents and/or income streams that remunerate capacity - e.g., as part of a
long-term delivery contract or a buy option with a supplier). An ideal, perfectly

Reliability of the electricity system

132

Frontier Economics | September 2015

competitive EOM therefore allows for full cost recovery (including investment
and fixed operation costs) of all capacities required to clear the market. For this
reason, in an ideal EOM sufficient investment incentives exist to build and
maintain the efficient capacity and generation mix. As a result, the welfaremaximising level of security of supply is reached and financed.

5.2

Potential market imperfections
We outline above that an ideal EOM can lead to a welfare-maximising level of
capacity and security of supply. However, the design of electricity markets in the
real-world may be characterised by market imperfection that may undermine
these mechanics:







Market risks – Uncertain future revenues and variable costs impose risks to
long-living and capital-intensive investments such as power plants. Some
sources argue that these become prohibitively high in an EOM with
increasing intermittent renewables and may result in insufficient investments
and thus a threat to security of supply (section 5.2.1).
Political risks – Further risks arise from uncertainty about future political
actions. These include general energy politics, for instance any decisions with
regards to nuclear energy or climate change. An additional particular risk
may come from potential political interventions into price building
mechanisms, for instance by implementing price caps. Some people argue
that there is a high risk for such interventions when markets become scarce
and prices peak, as state authorities can hardly distinguish between high
prices due to (welfare-damaging) market power abuse and high prices due to
(welfare-maximising) scarcity pricing. As a result, capacities that are needed
to provide security of supply would not be able to generate sufficient
revenues (“missing money”) (section 5.2.2).
External effects – Because price elasticity of electricity demand is low and
because consumers are physically connected through the electricity grid,
there may be situations where consumers are not served with electricity,
although they are willing to pay a high price for it. In other words, signalling
a high willingness to pay does not guarantee being served, because other
consumers cannot be excluded from consumption. Furthermore, power
plants which may be able to produce may be disconnected from the grid if
brown-outs occur (disconnection of grid areas). In this case, generators are
not remunerated for available power generation capacity since the
disconnected plants are not able to realise the price peaks on the electricity
market. Some people argue that this public good characteristic and external
effects lead to reduced signalling of willingness to pay by consumers and

Reliability of the electricity system

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

133

reduced incentives to invest in power plants and demand flexibility, and
results in insufficient capacity and security of supply (section 5.2.3).



International spill-over effects – Some countries surrounding the
Netherlands such as Belgium, France or the UK are currently implementing
(different sorts of) capacity remuneration mechanisms (CRMs). As these
tend to lead to lower wholesale prices in the whole region - via
interconnections also the Netherlands would be affected - incentives to
invest in the Netherlands might be reduced. Some market participants are
concerned that this could lead to insufficient capacity and a threat to security
of supply in the Netherlands (section 5.2.4).

An instrument to address welfare-damaging consequences of these market
imperfections, if they are relevant, would be to implement a CRM. Through a
CRM, operators of power generation, storage or demand flexibility capacities are
granted support for the mere availability of their capacity (paid on top of the
energy revenues that operators earn by selling electricity to the market).
However, CRMs are very complex, and implementing a CRM does mean to
overhaul the entire electricity market. Substantial parts of usually market-based
decisions are transferred to central authorities, for instance how much
investments are made at what time.
Therefore, a thorough analysis is needed whether the market is able to provide
reliability without introducing a CRM. Accordingly, the European Commission
requires any Member States who wishes to introduce a CRM to clearly
demonstrate the reasons why the market cannot be expected to deliver adequate
capacity.102
In the following, we analyse how relevant the above mentioned potential
imperfections of an EOM are in the context of the Dutch electricity market.
Whenever, we identify that there could be threats to security of supply, we
discuss whether there are appropriate measures to mitigate these threats within
an energy-only market design.
5.2.1

Market risks
There are basically two different sorts of market risks of possible relevance for
security of supply in the electricity sector:



102

Short-term risks (volatility) – To allow total cost remuneration for all
required capacity, an EOM does rely on power price peaks in scarcity
periods (‘peak load pricing’). With increasing shares of intermittent
RES-E with low variable costs, the overall price level is reduced.
Therefore, price peaks need to occur more often and need to rise
European Commission (2014).

Reliability of the electricity system

134

Frontier Economics | September 2015

higher to allow cost remuneration of firm capacity required to back-up
solar and wind plants. Thus, the short term fluctuation of electricity
prices increase. Due to the stochastic availability of wind and solar
power, electricity prices in specific hours also become less predictable.
The resulting higher volatility increases uncertainty about short-term
revenues.



Long-term risks (investment uncertainty) – Power plants are
durable investment goods, used for 20 or more years. At the time of
deciding on investments, however, neither power prices nor fuel and
CO2 prices are known. For this reason, future revenues are uncertain
which imposes risks on investments.
In addition, a lack of coordination in investments between market
participants might – in some periods - lead to overcapacities that would
prevent price peaks needed to recover investment costs. Therefore,
investment cycles might occur, increasing commercial risks of investors.

Market risks as a potential threat to security of supply – Assessment of
relevance in the Netherlands
We assess for the Netherlands that short-term and long-term market risks don’t
threaten security of supply:





Short-term risks can be hedged by market-based instruments – The
increase in price volatility resulting from an increasing share of intermittent
renewables may, ceteris paribus, be higher in the Netherlands than in other
larger European countries due to the smaller size of the electricity market.
However, markets are able to develop instruments to cope with risks
resulting from volatile prices. For example, it can be empirically observed
that participants in market with high wholesale price volatility increasingly
develop and trade financial and physical products to cope with price risks
such as for example buy options and contracts for differences. In addition,
the Dutch power plant park is characterised by a large share of efficient and
flexible gas-fired power plants that can react quickly to changing in-feed
from wind and solar installations. Therefore, no public intervention is
needed to cope with short-term risks.
Long-term risks are not new and not specific to electricity markets –In
many markets, investors bear long-term risks that they cannot insure. In
many product markets, prices and quantities are determined on a short-term
basis while production capacities have long lifetimes and are capital-intensive
and thus have to be financed in light of future prices and quantities. For
example, production sites for cars or shoes are capital-intensive and built for
long production periods while consumers will not guarantee consumption

Reliability of the electricity system

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

135

quantities and their willingness-to-pay beforehand.103 For this reason, many
markets are characterized by cycles of relative scarcity, high prices and
acceptable profits for suppliers, followed by excess supply, lower prices and
consolidation on the supply side.
Furthermore, potential commercial long term market risks such as
investment cycles or demand fluctuations are not linked to the massive
expansion of renewable energies – these cycles can emerge also in markets
solely based on thermal power generation. However, it can empirically be
observed that substantial investments in power plants took place in
electricity markets like the Netherlands in the past being aware that long
term commercial risks already existed at that point in time.
Investors are remunerated for taking risks by risk-adjusted profits. The
higher the risks investors have to bear in a market, the higher future
expected profits have to be in order to make the market attractive for
investors. If market risks in the power market are particularly high (as the
timing and the level of scarcity prices needed to recover fixed costs cannot
be exactly anticipated), capital costs and scarcity prices also have to be
particularly high.
In summary, the market can cope both with short- and with long-term
market risks. This holds true in light of an increasing share of intermittent
renewables in the power market. The increasing share of renewables leads to
increasing quantity-, price- and profit-risks for conventional power plants,
storages and demand flexibility. However, these increasing risks do not
change the fundamental market mechanism. The market will react to these
increasing risks, e.g., by higher prices during scarcity periods and by a shift to
investments into plants with lower capital costs (e.g., gas turbines or demand
flexibility in the industrial sector).
Market risks as a potential threat to security of supply – Policy
implications
As described above, markets are generally able to deal with market risks. The
political and regulatory framework therefore should enable markets to develop
the products and instruments needed to cope with these risks. Also, the political
and regulatory framework should ensure that high prices, potentially emerging
during scarcity periods, are not restricted (e.g., by setting price caps).

103

Like in power markets, a smoothening of profits is partly achieved via intermediate market stages
(wholesale or retail traders).

Reliability of the electricity system

136

5.2.2

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Political risks
There are basically two different sorts of political risks of possible relevance for
security of supply in the electricity sector:



Risks from general energy politics – for instance any decisions with
regards to nuclear energy or climate change.



Potential political interventions into price building – for instance
by implementing price caps. Some people argue that there is a high risk
for such interventions when markets become scarce and prices peak, as
state authorities can hardly distinguish between high prices due to
(welfare-reducing) abuse of market power and high prices due to
(welfare-maximising) scarcity pricing. As a result, capacities that are
needed to provide security of supply would not be able to generate
sufficient revenues (“missing money”).

Political risks as a potential threat to security of supply – Assessment
of relevance in the Netherlands
Political risks can substantially reduce investment incentives and therefore be
critical to security of supply. This holds especially if market participants fear that
investments undertaken in the past are devalued by political decisions in future.
However, politicians can reduce political risks by themselves by refraining from
strong political interventions into the energy markets and by limiting market
distortions for investments undertaken in the past.
We assess the political risks for security of supply in the Netherlands as follows:



General political interventions are difficult to predict – Investors in the
Netherlands would be affected by political interventions on the national as
well as on the European level (e.g., on the EU ETS). In addition, the Dutch
power system is highly interconnected with its neighbouring countries.
Therefore, political interventions in these countries (e.g. with regard to
renewable energy promotion, the implementation of CRMs or nuclear
policy) would also affect prices and revenues in the Netherlands.
However, political risks are not automatically a threat to security of supply.
Like market risks, political risks lead in first instance to higher risk premiums
and therefore to higher required returns on investments, higher prices and
higher costs for end-consumers, but not automatically to insufficient
investments. However, since political interventions are difficult to predict,
the calculation of risk premiums faces specific difficulties.



Risk of political intervention into price building seems to be low in the
Netherlands – Currently, in the Dutch electricity market no regulatory price
caps exist. Price limits on the day-ahead and the intraday-market are only

Reliability of the electricity system

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

137

technical, but no regulatory price caps exist. If necessary, these price limits
could theoretically be increased. However, even today price limits are
comparatively high: On the intraday-markets prices up to 100,000 €/MWh
can be realised and the price limit for imbalance prices is 100.000 €/MWh.
In addition, technical price limits are not binding for bilateral trades.



General political framework can be assessed to be comparably stable –
In the Netherlands, the political framework for the energy market can be
assessed to be rather stable and predictable compared to other countries.
Massive disruptions in the energy policy which could be observed in other
countries such as a short term shut down of nuclear power plants after the
Fukushima nuclear power plant accident in Japan or massive political
interventions against new technologies such as CCS can’t be observed.
Furthermore, policies to subsidise specific technologies such as RES –E
exist but are less interventionist and more predictable (e.g. due to a budget
cap) than in other countries. However, also in the Netherlands political
interventions into the energy market exist (e.g. policies regarding the
introduction of Smart Meters, the shut-down of old coal-fired power plants
etc.). It is important to limit unpredictable interventions to a minimum and
to implement policies in co-operation with the industry and other
stakeholders rather than devaluing investments undertaken in the past
without compensation in order to raise trust.

Political risks as a potential threat to security of supply – Policy
implications



Risks from general energy politics should be minimised by building (or
maintaining) a stable political framework – To some extent, future political
interventions are uncertain by nature because policy makers have to react to
market developments and new insights from academia that cannot be
foreseen. However, in some areas, uncertainty could be reduced:



104

Reliable deployment paths of renewables – While the Dutch
promotion system for renewables prevents uncontrolled renewable
deployment by setting constraints for the overall budget for promotion
payments (see above), an uncontrolled deployment might be induced by
incentives to install photovoltaic systems for auto-consumption (see
section 4.3.3). Currently, auto-consumers of small scale renewable
energy plants can make use of net-metering: They only pay energy taxes
on their net electricity consumption (i.e., on the difference of the
electricity they have taken from the grid and the electricity they have fed
into the grid).104 Net-metering makes the installation of small-scale RESSee res-legal.eu

Reliability of the electricity system

138

Frontier Economics | September 2015

E plants (in particular of photovoltaic systems) more attractive to
electricity consumers and might lead to an uncontrolled deployment of
renewable energy plants. This implicit subsidisation of small scale PV
may lead to higher system costs since less costly power technologies
don’t get energy tax rebates. In order to enhance the predictability of
market developments it would be advantageous if policy makers
indicated whether or when regulatory rules may change – for example, it
could be stated that the rules change as soon as a certain amount of
photovoltaic capacity has been installed.





Reducing uncertainty about instrument for decarbonisation –
Currently, two instruments for decarbonisation are used in parallel:
Renewable energies are promoted via the SDE+ premium tariff system
and in parallel the EU-ETS penalises CO2-emissions. While the EUETS builds on EU-wide system in decarbonisation efforts, the SDE+ is
a national promotion system that co-exists with several other national
renewable promotion systems in other European countries. In the
academic discussion, a broad consensus is that European cooperation in
renewable support would lead to efficiency gains. A stronger coordination of RES-E support across Europe may also lead more
stability of RES-E support systems since changing rules may at least to
some extent have to be co-ordinate between member states. In this
case, the predictability of energy policy would be improved.

Commitment to refrain from political interventions into price building
mechanisms– Price peaks are important for the functioning of the
electricity and should therefore not be distorted by price caps. Price peaks
indicate scarcity on the market to potential investors which are expected to
invest based on these signals. Furthermore, price peaks indicate the need for
generation and demand side short term flexibility in the market based on
short term price fluctuations.
Therefore, allowing high price peaks sets adequate investment signals for
peak plants, and allows for the correct valuation of capacity and flexibility
e.g. for the trading of back up capacity. For example, experience from
Australia shows that in a market with high price peaks market participants
will buy options to hedge against price peaks. In particular the South
Australian price zone is characterized by high price volatility and high peak
prices. In this market, options have become an important instrument of
hedging and of ensuring security of supply. Carstairs and Pope (2011) 105
explain that in Australia the standard strike price of an option that is
available in all hours corresponds approximately to the variable costs of an

105

Carstairs, J. and Pope, I. (2011).

Reliability of the electricity system

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

139

OCGT plant. The buyer of a contract pays an (annual) fixed price for the
auction and thereby hedges against prices above the variable costs of a peak
plant. The seller of the option receives the fixed price and thereby can
recover the investment costs of a peak plant even under uncertainty about
whether and how often the peak plant will be used.
As market participants might always be concerned about potential future
political interventions into price building mechanisms, policy may explicitly
commit not to introduce caps for power prices. Such a commitment can be
made, for two reasons:



Price caps may be implemented due to the existence or the suspicion of
market power (e.g. in the PJM -Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland
Power Pool - market in the USA). In this context, price caps can be
used to prevent the exercise of market power. However, electricity
markets are contestable markets; even if prices would be (or expected to
be) above the competitive level, competitive pressure would arise from
new market entrants or the activation of demand flexibility or
emergency control systems.



Furthermore, the market for power generation in the Netherlands is
characterised by a diversity of suppliers compared to other countries,
and interconnections to foreign power markets are strong, which
reduces the probability of an abuse of market power further. For these
reasons, we don’t expect longer-lasting market power abuses in the
Dutch power market that would require the introduction of price caps.

In addition to explicit price caps, implicit price caps might endanger security
of supply and should be avoided. Implicit price caps can for example be set
by poorly designed reserve mechanisms. If capacity that is contracted under
a reserve scheme is bid into the market, it is likely that it will dampen price
peaks and thereby reduces investment incentives.106 The design of the Dutch
“vangnet”, a so far non-activated reserve mechanism, includes that capacities
contracted by TenneT under the vangnet are kept out of the market in order
to prevent implicit price caps.107
In order to reduce political risks, policy makers should therefore commit to
accept price peaks in the future and confirm that they will not introduce
regulatory price caps – neither explicitly nor implicitly.

106

Carstairs, J. and Pope, I. (2011).

107

The “vangnet” has not been activated so far. It can be activated by MinEZ based on advises of
TenneT in its’ yearly monitoring report and/or ACM . If it is activated, it gives TenneT the
possibility to procure reserve capacities via long-term contracts that are kept out of the market and
only used if the market (including the balancing market) is not able to provide enough supply to
meet demand

Reliability of the electricity system

140

5.2.3

Frontier Economics | September 2015

External effects
In this section, we first describe external effects that might arise in EOMs and
that potentially could jeopardize the achievement of security of supply in EOMs.
Then, we discuss how relevant these effects are in the Netherlands.
External effects as a potential threat to security of supply – Description
A condition for achieving security of supply in an EOM is that demand can be
met during (nearly) all periods and that demand and supply curve intersect during
(nearly) all periods.
However, electricity systems are characterized by the following specifics:





Low elasticity of demand (in the short term) – Many consumers
(especially households) do not yet have the necessary technical equipment
that would allow them to reduce or shift demand during hours when
wholesale prices are high. Therefore, a part of demand is price-inelastic. This
can potentially lead to situations, in which demand and supply cannot be
directly cleared by the price mechanism on the wholesale electricity market.
However it is important to note that a clearing of demand and supply does
not require that all consumers are price-elastic – it is just necessary, that an
adequate amount of consumers is flexible.
Electricity trade is grid-bound – An individual consumer normally does
not have a direct grid connection to a producer (or supplier). Instead, he is
connected to the general electricity grid. For this reason, activities of some
market participants can also affect the level of security of supply of other
consumers or the possibility of other producers to feed-in electricity to the
grid (which is no longer possible for some producers if a brownout occurs).
This leads to the following effects:



Security of supply may have public good characteristics: Many
consumers (especially households, commerce and small industrial
customers) cannot be individually switched off. Therefore, if security of
supply is provided by some market participants, others cannot be
excluded from benefitting from this security of supply. Therefore,
security of supply has public good characteristics and market
participants theoretically could have an incentive to not reveal their
willingness to pay for security of supply.



External effects on producers/consumers: Individual consumers
cannot (ex-ante) insure themselves against a partial load curtailment
(during a situation of scarce supply and insufficient availability of priceelastic demand) by paying high prices. Consumers connected to
distribution networks in which a brownout (unplanned shut-down of a

Reliability of the electricity system

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

141

part of consumers or distribution networks) occurs are affected by the
load curtailment regardless of how much electricity they have procured
beforehand. This is especially harmful for consumers that have a high
willingness to pay for security of supply. In addition, those consumers
that have invested into demand flexibility cannot benefit from their
investment during a brownout.108
Also producers who theoretically could fulfil their delivery obligations
because their power plants would be available, cannot feed-in to the grid
when the grid they are connected to, has been shut-down. If
compensation mechanisms for such situations are missing, these
external effects can lead to missing profits that reduce investment
incentives for power plants, demand flexibility or decentralised power
systems.
Figure 74. External effects in EOMs

Source: Frontier economics.

External effects as a potential threat to security of supply –
Assessment of relevance in the Netherlands
Market participants will in their decision making process take external effects
only into account if they expect with a sufficiently high probability to be affected
by curtailments in the case of an imbalance in supply and demand.
Therefore, the relevance of external effects in the Dutch power market depends
on the probability and the extent to which market participants might be affected
by a supply disruption. This can be assessed by analysing which measures would
be taken under the current Dutch market rules in the case of a supply scarcity. In

108

Except for decentralised emergency power systems (such as emergency generators or batteries).

Reliability of the electricity system

142

Frontier Economics | September 2015

this case, the following (short-term) markets options would successively be
called:







Day-Ahead-Market (APX):


All possible transactions would be cleared at the technical price cap
of 3000 €/MWh;



In the case that demand and supply do not clear (i.e., for the Dutch
bidding zone demand and supply curves would not intersect)
demand bids would be curtailed.;

Intra-Day-Market (APX)


All balance responsible parties that have not procured (or cannot
generate) sufficient electricity to fulfil their contract obligations
(with suppliers or end-consumers) will try to purchase additional
electricity, e.g., on the Intra-Day-Market;



Up to a technical price cap of +100,000 €/MWh, additional supply
can be activated on the APX Intra-Day-Market; prices paid in
bilateral contracts can also be higher;



Some electricity suppliers might still not have procured sufficient
electricity to meet their supply obligations;

Balancing markets and imbalance settlement:


TenneT would activate all available reserve energy;



Imbalances would be settled at 100,000 €/MWh – the price limit
for imbalance payments in the Netherlands.

If demand cannot be met by available electricity supply even after closure of the
short-term markets, including available Dutch and cross-border reserve capacity,
TenneT would activate emergency capacity. If the system is still unbalanced and
the system stability in TenneT’s control area is physically under threat TenneT
can (as the responsible system operator) curtail exports that have already been
confirmed.109
Only if these measures are still insufficient to balance the system, a partial
(involuntary) curtailment of individual consumers or specific distribution
networks would occur.110 It is important to emphasize that an extensive blackout
is very unlikely – due to the missing market clearing on the short-term markets,

109

See https://www.acm.nl/download/documenten/acm-energie/systeemcode-elektriciteit-2015-0101.pdf

110

In addition, if the shortage in capacity was foreseeable a long time ahead, the “vangnet” could have
been activated such that capacities contracted under the “vangnet” would contribute to meet
demand and to prevent a curtailment.

Reliability of the electricity system

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

143

the TSO is aware of the upcoming imbalance in supply and demand. Therefore,
TenneT can plan a partial curtailment (“Brownout”), in order to guarantee a
secure operation of the remaining grid. In addition, the Netherlands are currently
in a very comfortable capacity situation, such that the likelihood of involuntary
load curtailments (due to the lack of generation capacity) is quite low in the near
and medium term future. Furthermore, although the existence of external effects
in the event of supply disruptions cannot be completely excluded, market
participants will expect with a high probability that most commercial transactions
would still take place (because most producers/consumers would still be
connected to the grid).
Therefore, in summary, it is unlikely (and it doesn’t correspond with our market
experience) that market participants take potential external effects from
brownouts into account in their investment decisions.
The Dutch electricity market currently is already designed in a way that avoids
external effects and favours security of supply. In many respects, the Netherlands
are in this regard ahead of other European countries:







High price limit for imbalance prices – The price limit of 100,000
€/MWh for the imbalance settlement is quite high compared to other
countries (e.g. Belgium: 3000 €/MWh, Germany: 15.000 €/MWh). High
price limits for imbalance payments help to mitigate external effects; market
participants will have a high incentive to avoid imbalances if they expect
high imbalance prices (especially during situations of scarce supply and
demand flexibility). The incentives for market participants to strategically
provide/purchase less capacity than required in scarcity events and to game
against low probability of the occurrence of scarcity events (strategic
behaviour) is very low – the potential “punishment” of miss-behaviour is
substantial.
Imbalance prices are set with regard to the marginal costs of
regulating power – Imbalance prices are based on the marginal costs (bids)
of reserve energy and thereby send strong price signals during situations of
scarce supply. Therefore, the pricing mechanism provides adequate costbased signals to avoid imbalances in economic terms, especially since the
bids for the provision of reserve power can incorporate a scarcity rent in
tight supply situations. In addition, the use of marginal pricing in the
imbalance settlement system ensures that imbalance prices and prices on the
intraday market are consistent.
Imbalance settlement system provides high incentive for selfbalancing – TenneT publishes imbalance prices and imbalance positions
close to real time. In addition, trade on intraday-markets is possible up to
five minutes before delivery. Thereby, market participants get a high

Reliability of the electricity system

144

Frontier Economics | September 2015

incentive for self-balancing measures (e.g., by procuring electricity on the
intraday market instead of paying imbalance prices).





Renewable energies bear balancing responsibility – In the Netherlands,
generally all market parties bear balancing responsibility. This includes
renewable energies. Therefore, producers of renewable energy have an
incentive to avoid imbalances.
Grid tariffs are to a large extent capacity-based – In the Netherlands,
grid-tariffs are mainly capacity- based; households pay a pure capacity-based
grid tariff and consumers connected to high-voltage grid pay grid tariffs that
are based approximately by 2/3 on capacity and by 1/3 on energy. Capacitybased grid-tariffs can incentivize consumers to reduce peak demand.

Furthermore, the Netherlands provides already provisions for a strategic reserve
(Vangnet) which can be activated if the supply-demand balance (generation
adequacy) turns out to be tight at some in time in the Dutch electricity market.
This instrument enhances the credibility of the EOM and the imbalance
mechanisms to penalise miss behaviour of market participants (i.e. gaming with
imbalances) since the probability of (physical) external effects in the context of
brownouts is further reduced and the financial settlement of imbalances is further
ensured. Furthermore, the “Vangnet” can serve as a measure to ensure the
provision of security of supply also for very rare events which market
participants might not take into account in their calculations of back-up capacity.
External effects as a potential threat to security of supply – Policy
implications
Although the Dutch electricity system is already well designed to avoid external
effects, following measures could further mitigate them:



Defining commercial rules for hypothetical brownouts



Fostering demand flexibility and market-entry of unconventional
generation capacities;



Provide incentives to adapt supply and (actual) demand of small
consumers.

In the following we discuss which challenges have to be overcome in order to
achieve these three measures. In addition, we describe how rules for the case, a
partial load curtailment would be necessary, should be designed.
Defining commercial rules for potential (hypothetical) brownouts
In the potential (hypothetical) case, that power markets were not be able to clear
(and thus to balance supply and demand), some consumers may need to be

Reliability of the electricity system

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

145

curtailed involuntarily (‘brownout’). If partial load curtailment would be
necessary, it is important



to curtail as least load as possible;



to curtail first customers with a low willingness to pay for security of
supply (if possible); and



to curtail load on a rolling basis (such that not the same customers are
curtailed for a long time, if curtailments occur during longer periods).

Furthermore, rules could be established to compensate market stakeholders for
external effects and to account for financial imbalances. Commercial rules to
compensate for external effects in hypothetical brownout situations and related
to the settlement of imbalances would increase the credibility of market signals.
Therefore, such rules could contribute to avoiding the situation for which the
rules are made for.
Finally, at APX, current (technical) price limits have been set at 3,000/MWh
(Day-Ahead). Since this price serves as a benchmark in many power contracts it
should reflect the value of electricity in any event. In the cases of a supply
shortage this might not be the case. Therefore, it should be assessed if the
technical price limit at the power exchange has to be changed in the medium to
long term when price peaks might occur in the market. Alternatively, a
“brownout” price could be defined which steps in if no market clearing even on
the intra-day market is possible and serves for the settlement of trades which still
take place in the market (rather than the day-ahead price at the price limit).
Ideally, this should be based on a VoLL estimate but could also be the 99.000
€/MWh which is the current price maximum on the intra-day market. The
fictional price could also be used to compensate market stakeholders for external
effects and to account for financial imbalances.
Demand flexibility and unconventional generation capacities Increasing flexibility of
demand is only possible if consumers



receive (adequate) price signals and can react to these signals; and



if the change in demand can me metered and settled.

If consumers have time-variable electricity tariffs, price signals can be offset by
grid costs that are paid on top of the market price. For example, if during a
period of scarce supply demand is shifted to a period of lower (wholesale)
electricity prices, higher grid tariffs may be charged to the customer if - due to
the additional consumption in one hour - the maximal grid capacity used by the
customer has been increased. In this case, a behaviour that is efficient with regard

Reliability of the electricity system

146

Frontier Economics | September 2015

to the price spreads is actually punished by higher grid costs.111 Unconventional
generation capacities are capacities that originally have been built as decentralised
capacities and not in order to bid into wholesale power markets, e.g., emergency
power systems (such as battery storages or small scale generators). It is important
that all available capacities in the electricity system can participate in the market
and thereby contribute to provide flexibility. Therefore, if any obstacles with
regard to the market participation of unconventional generation capacities exist,
such obstacles should be removed.
Incentives to avoid imbalances of consumers with standard load profiles
The consumption of households, commercial customers and small industrial
customers is not metered on an hourly (or quarter-hourly) basis. Suppliers that
provide these customers with electricity procure electricity according to standard
load profiles and also bear balancing responsibility with regard to these standard
load profiles. This induces the following challenges:



On supplier-level: Suppliers don’t have an incentive to procure the
electricity that their customers actually consume but only the electricity
that is needed according to the standard load profiles.



On customer-level: Customers neither have an incentive nor the
technical possibility to adjust their consumption to the standard load
profiles.

Companies, settling the imbalances of load profile customers should have an
incentive to manage these imbalances actively e.g. by procuring back up capacity.
Another option could be to solve these missing incentives would be to provide
more customers with the technical metering equipment needed to include them
into balancing groups.
5.2.4

International spill over effects
The Netherlands are highly interconnected with Belgium – where a strategic
reserve has been introduced -, with Germany - where the introduction of a CRM
is still under consideration - and with the UK, where a capacity market has been
introduced. In this section we discuss how the existence or introduction of
CRMs in neighbouring countries might affect security of supply in the
Netherlands.

111

One solution would be not to take into account load resulting from load shifting in the calculation
of the customer’s maximal grid capacity. This solution is applicable as long as the increase in the
customers’ individual peak load does not induce additional costs in the grid.

Reliability of the electricity system

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

147

International spill over effects as a potential threat to security of supply
- Description
CRMs increase the amount of available generation capacity and thereby, in
general, reduce price peaks that would occur during hours of scarcity. Through
network interconnection, this price dampening effect of CRMs does not only
occur in the country where the CRM is in place but is (partly – depending on the
extent of interconnection) “exported” to its neighboring countries. The higher
the capacity requireements under the foreign CRM are the higher the probability
of spill-over effects to other countries.
International spill over effects as a potential threat to security of supply
– Assessment of relevance in the Netherlands
The quantitative power market analysis (sensitivity 4 “Increased foreign
capacity”) has shown that the introduction of capacity reserve requirements in
connected or neighbouring countries affects investment decisions within the
Netherlands.112 Sensitivity 4 represents a situation, in which foreign capacity
mechanisms don’t take the contribution of interconnected capacity fully into
account, i.e. excessive capacity requirements are defined. This leads to lower
capacity provision in the Netherlands (see section 3.4.5).
Nevertheless, even with excessive capacity requirements, we do not observe
involuntary load-reduction in the Netherlands, and the Netherlands remain netexporter of power in the long-run. Both factors indicate that security of supply
can still be safeguarded:
1. The additional generation capacity in neighbouring countries, induced by
the foreign CRMs, also contributes to maintaining security of supply in
the Netherlands: As long as scarcity events don’t occur in both countries
and interconnector capacity is available, demand in the Netherlands can
also be met by imports.
2. High price peaks will still occur during situations in which foreign
capacity is not or only to a limited extent available for exports to the
Netherlands. This can for example be the case when demand peaks occur
at the same time in both countries or because of limited interconnector
capacity. Thus, investments into new generation capacity can still be
profitable.
Despite all of the above, there remains the challenge that price peaks occur less
often113. Therefore, price- and quantity risks for investors in the Netherlands
112

We have analysed possible spill-over effects for countries that have decided to introduce some form
of CRM, France and Belgium.

113

We observe that the number of prices above 200 €/MWh in 2030 reduces significantly from 28 in
the Base Case to 4 hours per years in sensitivity 4.

Reliability of the electricity system

148

Frontier Economics | September 2015

increase compared to a situation in which all neighbouring countries would only
have an EOM. This holds especially if foreign CRMs induce over capacities in
the respective markets. These risks need to be financed via higher prices and
profits in the market which increases total costs of electricity supply. In addition,
high price peaks increase the political risk of market intervention (see section
5.2.2).
Moreover, interactions between energy-only-markets and markets that have a
CRM (via electricity import and exports) lead to distributional effects. In the
Netherlands, the price dampening wholesale electricity price effect that results
from foreign CRMs is



beneficial to Dutch consumers (see section 3.4.5); but



it can lead to lower profits for Dutch electricity producers if they are
not able to explicitly participate in the foreign CRMs and therefore
don’t receive capacity payments.114

Distributional effects occurring in countries that have a CRM but are
interconnected to countries with an EOM, are opposite to those described
above:



the financial burden for foreign consumers increases as they pay the
capacity payments, but do not fully benefit from lower wholesale
electricity prices (as a part of the price decrease is “exported” to the
Netherlands);



foreign producers are better off compared to a situation in which all
countries would introduce a CRM because they receive capacity
payments but do not bear the total price dampening effect.

From an economic point of view, these distributional effects are neither
beneficial nor problematic. However, from a political point of view, distributional
effects can play a role when making decisions on market intervention.
International spill-over effects as a potential threat to security of supply
– Policy implications
The introduction of CRMs in neighbouring countries is no threat to security of
supply in the Netherlands. However, risks for Dutch investors increase because
scarcity prices occur less often (but are higher if they occur). For this reason, the
measures in order to reduce political risks, described in Section 5.2.2 are
especially important in the light of (potential) international spill over effects. In
114

EU state aid guidelines require that CRMs need to explicitly allow for cross-border participation.
However, there are different ways to meet this requirement. For example in the UK CRM, crossborder participation will be introduced within this year but includes capacity payments for the
interconnector only and not for power plans in neighbouring countries.

Reliability of the electricity system

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

149

particular it is important that policy makers commit to accept price peaks in the
future and that they will not introduce regulatory price caps.
In addition, the co-existence of fundamentally different market designs in the
European power system that is strongly physically interconnected, can lead to
various distortions, especially if interconnected capacity is not taken into account
appropriately when capacity requirements are defined. EU member states should
clearly co-ordinate especially in the case of the implementation of CRMs which
reliability measure is used for calculating the capacity requirements and how
international portfolio effects (e.g. non full correlation of residual demand across
EU countries) are taken into account. Otherwise, there is the risk of over
capacities increasing the spoil-over effects between countries substantially.
Furthermore, in CRMs x-border trading of capacity (generation and/or
transmission capacity) should explicitly be allowed and made possible in order to
comply with the European energy market. The current debate about CRMs
indicates that x-border capacity participation in CRMs is complex. For example
the availability of capacity across the borders has to be assured in scarcity events,
it has to be assured that capacities are available for those customers paying for
the capacity (that means in this case for customers abroad), and availability of
generation and transmission capacity has to be assured “as a package”.
In this context, also the coordination and harmonization of market rules for
scarcity events should be enhanced across in Europe. For example, grid
operators disconnecting x-border interconnections in scarcity events are not
compatible with cross-border trading of capacities in CRMs. Furthermore,
differing (maximum) imbalance prices across countries can distort price signals
and cross-border power trading in scarcity events not only on the balancing
market, but also on the day-ahead and intra-day markets; electricity will be traded
to the market area with the presumably highest imbalance prices since market
participants which face imbalances will try to minimise penalties from paying
imbalance prices by moving their short position to the country with the lowest
prices.

5.3

Overall assessment of the future EOM design
As described in Section 5.1, we assess that an ideal EOM can guarantee security
of supply without “explicit” capacity payments. Due to scarcity rents that can be
achieved during hours of peak demand and scarce supply and due to implicit
capacity payments (e.g., on balancing markets or via long-term contracts), even
marginal plants can recover investment and fixed costs in an EOM.
Possible market distortions could arise from market and political risks, external
effects and international spill over effects. As described in Section 5.2, we assess
that these potential market (design) failures are either not relevant in the
Netherlands or can be mitigated by reforms:

Reliability of the electricity system

150



Frontier Economics | September 2015

Market risks can be borne by investors; no action needed – We expect
that the market participants can cope both with short- and with long-term
commercial market risks. This also holds in the light of an increasing share
of intermittent renewables in the power market that will entail higher
quantity-, price- and profit-risks for conventional power plants, storages and
demand flexibility. However, these increasing risks do not change the
fundamental market mechanism. The market will react to these increasing
risks, e.g. by higher prices during scarcity periods and by a shift to
investments into plants with lower capital costs (e.g. gas turbines or demand
flexibility in the industrial sector).
The political and regulatory framework therefore should enable markets to
develop the products or instruments needed to cope with these risks. Also,
the political and regulatory framework should ensure that high prices,
emerging during scarcity periods, are not restricted (e.g., by setting price
caps).



Political risks seem to be rather low in the Netherlands compared to
other countries but could be reduced further – Generally, political
interventions are difficult to predict but not automatically a threat to security
of supply. Risks from general energy policies can be reduced by setting or
maintaining a stable political framework. In the Netherlands, political risks
could be reduced e.g. by clarifying whether policy will accept a further
substantial deployment of small-scale photovoltaic or whether net-metering
rules might be abolished once a certain threshold of installations has been
reached.
The risk of political interventions into price building seems to be low in the
Netherlands: Currently no price cap exists, and even the technical price
limits are comparatively high compared to other European countries
(especially intra-day and in the balancing market). In order to maintain a
stable political framework, Dutch policy makers may commit not to
introduce price caps in the future.



The Dutch electricity system is already well designed to avoid external
effects, however, a few improvements could still be made – Due to the
specific characteristics of electricity markets, signalling a high willingness to
pay does not guarantee being served, because other consumers cannot be
excluded from consumption. Therefore, investments into security of supply
might be insufficient. However, external effects can be avoided if market
participants expect with a high probability to be affected by curtailments in
case an imbalance between supply and demand occurs. The current Dutch
electricity market is already well designed to prevent external effects as
market participants will expect with a high probability that most commercial
transactions would still take place (because most producers/consumers

Reliability of the electricity system

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

151

would still be connected to the grid) and imbalances will be settled with high
probability. Furthermore, a number of market design elements are designed
to avoid or mitigate externalities, for example:



price limits for imbalance prices are comparatively high;



imbalance prices are set with regard to the marginal costs of regulating
power;



the imbalance settlement system provides high incentive for selfbalancing;



renewable energies bear balancing responsibility; and



grid tariffs are to a large extent capacity-based (which incentivises to
reduce peak load).

Although the Dutch electricity system is already well designed to avoid
external effects, following measures could further mitigate them:



Beside technical rules, define commercial rules for potential situations
with brownouts including provisions for the compensation of external
effects;



Increase flexibility of demand, e.g. by ensuring that the calculation of
grid costs does not prevent load shifting (a potential obstacle to load
shifting could be that a customer has to pay higher grid tariffs if due to
his load shifting his maximal grid capacity used has increased);



Avoid barriers for unconventional generation capacities to participate in
the market; For example, the current regulatory framework doesn’t
recognize storage as such and therefore need to consider it both as load
and production making it difficult for storage providers to compete
with conventional generation.



Incentivise companies, settling the imbalances of load profile customers,
to manage these imbalances actively e.g. by procuring back up capacity.
Currently, imbalances of load profile customers are balanced by the
distribution grid operators. Costs for balancing these customers are
passed on into the grid tariffs and are therefore socialised. With the
smart meter roll-out in the Netherlands it can be expected that a least a
substantial share of load profile customers are transferred to the
balancing of metered customers. Costs for balancing these customers
are then transferred to the Programme-Responsible-Parties, who then
have an incentive to minimise balancing costs by a mix of measures
such as short-term trading and long-term procurement of back-up
capacity. It may be an option to implement an obligation to transfer the

Reliability of the electricity system

152

Frontier Economics | September 2015

balancing of all smart metered customers to Programme-ResponsibleParties.



International spill-over effects are not necessarily a threat to security
of supply – The Dutch electricity market is interconnected with countries
that have introduced a CRM. For this reason, wholesale power prices and
the number of price peaks might also be reduced in the Netherlands. High
price peaks will still occur during hours in which foreign capacity is not or
only to a limited amount available for exports to the Netherlands. However,
especially if substantial additional generation capacity is induced by the
foreign CRM these price peaks occur less often so that price- and quantity
risks for investors in the Netherlands increase compared to a situation in
which all neighbouring countries would only have an EOM. These risks
need to be financed via higher prices and profits in the market. For this
reason, it is important that policy makers commit not to introduce price caps
- especially in light of potential international spill-over effects. Furthermore,
capacity requirements in foreign capacity mechanisms should not lead to
substantial overcapacities.

Furthermore, the Netherlands already provides provisions for a strategic reserve
(Vangnet) which can be activated if the supply-demand balance (generation
adequacy) turns out to be tight at some point in time in the Dutch electricity
market. This instrument enhances the credibility of the EOM and the imbalance
mechanisms to penalise misbehaviour of market participants (i.e. gaming with
imbalances) since the probability of (physical) external effects in the context of
brownouts is further reduced and the financial settlement of imbalances is further
ensured. Furthermore, the “Vangnet” can serve as a measure to ensure the
provision of security of supply also for very rare events which market
participants might not take into account in their calculations of back-up capacity.
We recommend maintaining the “Vangnet” as an instrument to provide back-up
to the Dutch power market if developments deviate from the expectations.
Figure 75 summarizes our assessment of the Dutch electricity market with
respect to its ability to guarantee security of supply. Based on our analysis, we
conclude that the Dutch electricity market currently is already well designed to
guarantee security of supply. However, some reforms may be implemented in
order to enhance the ability of the current market design to ensure reliability. In
particular, political uncertainty should be minimised, i.e., policy makers may
commit not to interfere into electricity price building mechanisms in the future.

Reliability of the electricity system

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

Figure 75. Conclusion on reliability of the Dutch electricity system
● In theory, an ideal EOM can guarantee for generation adequacy
without “explicit” capacity payments

Capacity price
elements in EOM
1
Possible market
distortions

2
Market risks for
investors

Investors are used to
carry long-term risks

Assessment

→ They will develop
trading products
and take risks into
account in
requested RoR
→ No action needed

3

4

Political risk for
investors

External effects at
brownouts

Spill-over of CRMs
abroad

Political risks are
difficult to handle

External effects of
limited practical
relevance in NL, in
particular due to tight
imbalance
settlement

Different market
designs not ideal,
but no principle
threat to SoS in NL

→ Avoid entry
barrieres for DSR
to enhance price
elasticity

→ Coordinate rules
for system stress

→ Minimise
unpredictable
political
intervention
→ Aim for long-term
energy and
climate targets

→ Coordinate SoS
definition

● Potential market (design) failures are either not relevant or can be
mitigated by reforms

Conclusion

● EOM can guarantee security of supply (minor reforms should be undertaken to
enhance the ability of the current EOM to guarantee security of supply)

Source: Frontier

Reliability of the electricity system

153

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

6

155

Policy implications
This section summarises the policy implication derived from the analyses on the
reliability and affordability of the electricity system in the Netherlands regarding

6.1



The electricity market design (section 6.1); and



The design of renewable support and market integration of renewables
(section 6.2).

Policy implications related to the Market Design
The Dutch electricity market is already well designed in order to achieve security
of supply and reliability. Elements of the Dutch electricity market design that
encourage the provision of security of supply in an “energy-only-market” include
the following:



No regulatory price caps exist and technical price limits at the power
exchange are comparatively high (especially in the intra-day market);



The price limit for imbalance prices is comparatively high generating
strong incentives for market participants to balance power generation,
procurement and supply;



Imbalance prices are set with regard to the marginal costs of regulating
power providing an adequate signal for the value/costs of imbalances;



The imbalance settlement system provides high incentive for selfbalancing;



Renewable energies bear balancing responsibility; and



Grid tariffs are to a large-extent capacity-based (which provides
incentives to reduce peak demand).

Furthermore, market rules in the Netherlands already incorporate provisions for
a strategic reserve (Vangnet) which can be activated if the supply-demand balance
(generation adequacy) turns out to be tight at some point in time in the Dutch
electricity market. This instrument enhances the credibility of the EOM and the
imbalance mechanism to penalise misbehaviour of market participants (i.e.
gaming with imbalances) since the probability of (physical) external effects in the
context of brownouts is further reduced and the financial settlement of
imbalances is further ensured. Furthermore, the “Vangnet” can serve as a
measure to ensure the provision of security of supply also for very rare events
which market participants might not take into account in their calculations of
back-up capacity. We recommend maintaining the “Vangnet” as an instrument to

Policy implications

156

Frontier Economics | September 2015

provide back-up to the Dutch power market if developments deviate from the
expectations.
Some additional reforms could however enhance the ability of the Dutch
electricity system to provide security of supply further:



In order to maintain a stable political framework, Dutch policy makers
should commit not to introduce price caps in the future even when
electricity prices become more volatile (at least no price caps below the
Value-of-Lost-Load);



In order to minimise potential (rather hypothetical) external effects
commercial rules for potential (hypothetical) brownouts may be
defined. This may include commercial rules for the involuntary supply
curtailment as well as rules to compensate market stakeholders for
(potential) external effects and to account for financial imbalances in the
case of brownouts. These commercial rules could especially increase the
credibility of market signals and therefore contribute to avoid the
situation for which the rules are made for.



Incentives should be improved to manage imbalances of load profile
customers actively e.g. by procuring back up capacity. Alternatively, an
increasing share of consumers, which are subject to standard load
profiles today, may be equipped with technical metering equipment. In
this case, the consumption of these customers can be settled by metered
data instead of load profiles. However, costs for the meter equipment
and the required IT have to be taken into account.



Spill-over effects from foreign CRM’s may occur especially if
additional capacity induced by the CRM is substantial and overcapacities
arise in the market. On the other hand, these spill-over effects are
limited if the design of the CRM is adequate and capacity requirements
defined in the CRM are moderate (e.g. by taking international portfolio
effects into account). Therefore, it is important that the Netherlands
takes actively part in the European debate on CRMs such that


the definition of security of supply is coordinated at the European
level;



excessive capacity requirements in CRMs in neighbouring is
avoided;



the designs of CRMs get harmonized across Europe; and



Dutch power plants are allowed to explicitly participate in CRMs of
neighbouring countries (as envisaged by the European
Commission).

Policy implications

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

157

Furthermore, the general policy framework should be assessed as stable by
market participants. For example, climate policy in the power sector should be
embedded in the EU ETS. This means, for instance, that unforeseeable ad hoc
intervention in the power market as a national instrument of CO2 policy
deviating from the long term plan should be avoided. Otherwise, trust of
participants in the policy framework might be undermined leading to negative
impacts on investments in the longer term.

6.2

Renewable energies and other technologies
The Energy Agreement defines technology specific targets, i.e. increasing
capacities for wind-onshore and wind-offshore in the medium-term, and other
measure of climate change, i.e. short-term retirement of old coal-fired power
plants. These targets and measures are designed to support the medium-term
goal of a share of renewable energy sources in the energy mix of 16% in 2023.
Currently, financial support to increase the deployment of RES-E is granted in
the form of a market premium under the SDE(+) scheme:



The current RES support mechanism in the Netherlands (sliding market
premium) represents a relatively cost-efficient way to deploy renewable
energy sources in the electricity sector. It incorprates competition
between techologies (even though it is not completely technology
neutral) while keeping track of support costs. In addition, the cap on
support payment limits the total cost burden to final consumers. In
addition, the current mechanism is reviewed on an annual basis.



Furthermore, all market participant (incl. renewables) bear balance
repsonsibility. This enhances the market integration of renewables.

Based on our analysis of the future profitability of intermittent RES-E, we derive
the following conclusions:



Further cost reductions are required to achieve grid-parity of
intermittent renewable electricity sources until 2035 if the market
environment doesn’t change substantially (e.g. due to substantially
higher CO2-prices in combination with substantially higher primary
energy prices);



From a economic perspective, wind-onshore and offshore are more
efficient than solar PV as less additional support is required to finance
the deployment;



Individual incentives to invest, however, can deviate from the efficient
technology choice as implicit subsidies in the form of net-metering of
consumption are granted e.g. for solar PV and distort the individual
investment incentives.

Policy implications

158

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Based on our modelling analysis, we expect that financial support is required in
order to achieve the targeted levels of renewable energy in the Netherlands. We
derive the following implications for future renewable policies in the
Netherlands:



The Netherlands should aim for a consistent framework of renewable
policy for the period after 2020 in order to create long-term incentives
and thereby certainty for investors in both renewable and conventional
energy sources;



Our modelling analysis shows that the growth of renewable energy
sources in electricity supply represents a significant leverage on costs to
final consumers. Therefore, the definition of targets and instruments
should take the affordability and costs to final consumers into account;



In order to increase effciciency, more co-ordination regarding RES-E
support in the European Union should be achieved; and



The framework should explicitly adress implicit subsidies for certain
technologies that could distort investment incentives and lead to
uncontrolled and unforeseeen growth of decentral generation. This is
true especially for solar PV which is currently not economical from a
system perspective but from an individual’s perspective due to implicit
subsidies arising from net-metering of consumption.



In order to enhance the predictability of market developments it would
be advantageous if policy makers indicated in a timely manner whether
or when regulatory rules may change – for example, it could be stated
that the rules change as soon as a certain amount of e.g. photovoltaic
capacity has been installed

Due to the increasing share of intermittent RES-E in the electricity system, the
flexibility of the electricity system is an important element of the energy
transition. However, as of today, there is substantial flexibility available in the
Dutch power market Based on our power market simulations, we don’t expect a
massive need to invest in unconventional flexibility technologies since sufficient
flexibility can be provided e.g. from gas-fired power stations, CHP plants, and
cross-border interconnections:



The low level of power prices in the short-term (39€(real, 2013)/MWh
in 2015) on the one hand and the high amount of final or temporary
retirement of power plants on the other hand indicate the existance of
overcapacities in the power sector. These overcapacities arise from the
high growth of renewable energy sources in the past decade (in the
Netherlands and in Europe) as well as decreasing power demand after
the financial crisis and higher energy efficiency (in the Netherlands and
in Europe).

Policy implications

September 2015 | Frontier Economics



159

After a period of consolidation, previously mothballed generation
capacities re-enter the market when the supply-demand balance in the
electricity market becomes tighter (in the Netherlands and in Europe)
and power prices rise to above 50 €(real, 2013)/MWh. Based on these
flexible power plants and taking into account new and existing
interconnection and storage capacities across Europe, substantial
amounts of RES-E can be integrated into the system without major
investments in new storage technologies in the next 20 years.

In the long term, additional flexibility options such as demand-side-response
(DSR) can be further developed. Due to the envisaged smart meter roll-out
programme in the Netherlands, there will be substantial potential for developing
DSR. Clear mechanisms and rules are required to coordinate the use of these
decentralised flexibility options for alleviating grid constraints (in particular in the
distribution grid) on the one hand side, and for balancing the power system (e.g.
to balance fluctuating wind and PV on the system level) on the other hand side.
Furthermore, taxes and levies could be designed in a way that electricity is
especially used in periods with substantial power generation from renewable
sources (high wind, high sun periods). This could include reducing taxes and
levies in periods of low wholesale power market prices. However, on the other
hand side, the modification of taxes and levies should not lead to inefficient high
incentives to invest in decentralised flexibility such as small scale batteries.
We do not observe a specific need to support the implementation of new
technologies (including flexibility technologies) on large scale. Instead, the larger
scale implementation of those technologies can be left to the market
mechanisms. However, technology options should not be ruled out and
politically sorted out in an early stage. The Netherlands should keep the options
for deploying other technologies such as compressed air energy storage (CAES)
as well. Developing these technologies in the context of Research and
Development (R&D) can offer further flexibility options in the more distant
future when even higher shares of power supply may be generated by RES-E

Policy implications

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

161

References















Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (BMWi) (2014a): “Ein
Strommarkt für die Energiewende – Diskussionspapier des Bundesministeriums für
Wirtschaft und Energie (Grünbuch)“, Berlin.
Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (BMWi) (2014b), “Moderne
Verteilernetze für Deutschland (Verteilernetzstudie)”, Berlin.
Carstairs, J. / Pope, I. (2011): “The case of a new capacity mechanism in the UK
electricity market – Lessons from Australia and New Zealand” Energy Policy,
Vol.39, pp.5096-5098
CE Delft / DNV GL (2014): “Toekomst WKK en warmtevoorziening industrie”,
Delft.
CE Delft (2010): “Net voor de Toekomst”, Delft.
CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (2015): “Technological
Uncertainty in Meetings Europe’s Decarbonisation Goals”, CPB Discussion Paper
301.
CBS (2015), “Prognose intervallen van de bevolking, 2015-2060”, Centraal Bureau
voor de Statistiek (CBS), The Hague.
Clingendael / PBL (2014), “Reflections on coordination mechanisms: for
accommodating increasing amounts of wind and solar in the power market”, by
Clingendael International Energy Programme and Planbureau voor de
leefomgeving, Netherlands.
Deloitte (2004): “Benutting vraagrespons in de geliberaliseerde elektriciteitsmarkt”,
Onderzoek voor het Ministerie van Economische Zaken DirectoraatGeneraal voor Marktordening en Energie, Amstelveen.
DLR/ Frauenhofer IWES/ IfnE (2012): “Langfristszenarien und Strategien für
den Ausbau der erneuerbaren Energien in Deutschland bei Berücksichtigung der
Entwicklung in Europe und global – BMU Leitstudie 2011”, BMU-FKZ
03MAP146.
ECF (2010), “Roadmap to 2050; a practical guide to a prosperous, low-carbon Europe,
technical analysis”, European Climate Foundation (ECF).
ECN/PBL (2014): “Nationale Energieverkenning”, Petten.

References

162
















Frontier Economics | September 2015

ECN (2014a): “Cost and revenue related impacts of integrating electricity from variable
renewable energy into the power system – a review of recent literature”, Energy Research
Centre of the Netherlands, Netherlands.
ECN (2014b): Berekening basisbedragen SDE (+) 2015.
European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity
(ENTSO-E) (2013): “Guideline for Cost Benefit Analysis of Grid
Development Projects”, Brussels.
European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity
(ENTSO-E) (2014): “Scenario Outlook & Adequacy Forecast 2014-2030”,
Brussels.
European Commission (2014): “Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection
and energy 2014-2020”, 2014/C200/01.
European Commission (2012): “The state of the European carbon market in
2012”, COM (212, 652), Brussels.
Frontier Economics / Formaet Services (2014): “Strommarkt in
Deutschland
–
Gewährleistet
das
derzeitige
Marktdesign
Versorgungssicherheit?“; Bericht für das Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft
und Energie (BMWi).
IEA (2014a): “Energy Policies of IEA Countries – The Netherlands, 2014 Review”,
International Energy Agency (IEA/OECD), Paris.
IEA (2014b): ”The Power of Transformation – Wind, Sun and the Economics of
Flexible Power Systems”, International Energy Agency (IEA/OECD), Paris.
IEA (2014c): “World Energy Outlook”, International Energy Agency
(IEA/OECD), Paris.
NEA (2012): “Nuclear Energy and Renewables: System Effects in Low-Carbon
electricity systems”, Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA/OECD), Paris.
PV Parity project (2013), “Grid Integration Cost of PhotoVoltaic Power Generation
– Direct Cost Analysis related to Grid Impacts of PhotoVoltaics”, Imperial College
London, London.
Réseau de transport d’électricité (RTE) (2014): “French Capacity Market –
Report accompanying the draft rules”, Paris.

References

September 2015 | Frontier Economics








163

Rijksdienst voor Ondernemend Nederland (RVO) (2011): „Elektrisch Rijden
in de versnelling“, Plan van Aanpak 2011-2015.
Rijkswaterstaat Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu (2010): BS-10-002,
ECN Beleidsstrudies „Potentieel en rijpheid van hernieuwbare energieopties“, Petten.
Sociaal-Economische Raad (SER) (2013): “Energieakkoord voor duurzame groei”,
Rapport, Den Haag.
TenneT TSO B.V. (2014): “Rapport Monitoring Leveringszekerheid 2013-2029”,
Arnhem.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2014): “Annual Energy
Outlook 2014 with projections to 2040”, DOE/EIA-0383(2014),
Washington.
VVD (People's Party for Freedom and Democracy) / PvdA (Labour Party)
(2012): Coalition agreement cabinet Rutte-Asscher – “Building Bridges”,
AVT12/AZ106835, Den Haag.

References

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

165

Annexe 1: Methodology of estimating grid
cost
In Section 4.1.2, we presented our estimation of grid investment costs induced
by the planned RES-E deployment in the Netherlands up to 2030. In the
following, we describe the methodology used for our estimation in more detail.
We describe how we derived grid investment costs per MW of additional RES-E
deployed in the system from the BMWi and the ECN Study, respectively. Then,
we show the results of the grid investment costs per unit of RES-E and the RESE deployment numbers that we multiplied with the unit grid investment costs.
Methodology for deriving grid investment costs induced by RES-E
deployment
We estimated grid investment costs induced by RES-E deployment based on two
studies. In the following we describe which data was provided in the two studies
and which assumptions we had to make.
BMWi-Study
At the end of 2014, the German Ministry of Economic Affairs
(Bundesministeriums für Wirtschaft und Energie (BMWi)) commissioned a study
to understand what the increased share of energy from renewable sources meant
for distribution grid investment.
We take the resulting investment numbers and translate them into an amount per
additional MW of renewable energy as described in 3.2.4. We use the investment
scenario “Netzenentwicklungsplan” as the upper bound for our calculations and
the scenario “Bundesländer” as lower bound. In the German study it is assumed
that all of these costs will have materialized by 2032, whereas we have used
different time scales for different scenarios.

Annexe 1: Methodology of estimating grid cost

166

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Figure 76. Methodology to obtain estimates of total required grid investment in the
Netherlands from BMWi study

Source: Frontier Economics

By taking this approach we have assumed that the costs of integrating a higher
share of renewables into the electricity distribution grid will be comparable for
the Netherlands and Germany.
ECN-Study
In May 2014, Jos Sijm published the meta-study “Cost and revenue related
impacts of integrating electricity from variable renewable energy into the power
system – a review of recent literature”, for the Energy Research Centre of the
Netherlands (ECN). This study compares a set of recent publications on the cost
and revenue related impacts of integrating higher shares of electricity from
renewable sources in the electricity system.
As our analysis is focused on the impact of higher shares of renewable energy on
the grid investment costs, we have only considered the grid-related costs in this
paper and have ignored additional balancing and adequacy costs.
Estimates in the ECN study are given in €/MWh, which we have used to obtain
an estimate of total grid investment required in the Netherlands using the
methodology described above.

Annexe 1: Methodology of estimating grid cost

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

167

Figure 77. Methodology to obtain estimates from ECN meta-study

Source: Frontier Economics

Estimated investment costs per additional MW
We have derived the following investment costs per MW of renewable electricity
for both the BMWi and ECN studies (Table 4).
Table 4. Required grid capital expenditure in per €/MW of electricity from a renewable
source
Investment
costs per MW
of

BMWi

ECN

Lower bound

Upper bound

Lower bound

Upper bound

RES-E

€337,241

€360,256

-

-

Solar PV

-

-

€8,190

€651,924

Wind on-shore

-

-

€32,648

€932,800

Wind off-shore
(Transmission
grid)

-

-

€866,056

€1,440,938

Source: BMWi, ECN, Frontier Economics

We derive the total grid costs by multiplying the average of indicated ranges in
the ECN study with the yearly capacity additions of intermittent renewable
energy sources. Therefore, we assume constant costs of renewable expansion on
grid level. This represents a rather conservative assumption as it does not take
into account possible economies of scale.

Annexe 1: Methodology of estimating grid cost

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

169

Annexe 2: Power market modelling
In this Annexe we present additional information on quantitative analysis and the
power market modelling:



Assumptions regarding the development of power demand in all
modelled regions;



Development of interconnection capacity in all modelled regions;



Development of generation capacities and power generation (Base
Case);



Impact of the sensitivities on power generation in all regions;



Development of imports and exports of power to and from the
Netherlands; and



The modelling of capacity mechanisms.

Assumptions regarding power demand in all regions
We assume that electricity consumption increases moderately by 7% from 2015
to 2035 in all modelled regions (Figure 78). The assumptions are derived from
multiple sources, e.g. the network development in the case of Germany and TSO
forecasts for France.

Annexe 2: Power market modelling

170

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Figure 78. Electricity demand (model-region)
3,000

IT
DK

2,500

GB
2,000

PL

TWh/a

CZ
1,500

AT
CH
1,000

FR
BE

500

NL
0

DE

Source: Frontier

Development of interconnection capacity in Europe
We expect that interconnection capacity will continue to increase in order to
achieve an integrated internal electricity market in Europe. As described in
section 3.2.6, we base our assumptions regarding the future development of ICcapacity on the ENTSO-E TYNDP (2014). Figure 79 shows the assumed
development of interconnection capacity (average of import/export capacity) in
all modelled regions until 2035.

Annexe 2: Power market modelling

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

Figure 79. Average of import/export capacity (Europe)
160
140

PL
CZ
DK
CH
AT
IT
GB
BE
NL
FR
DE

120

GW

100
80
60
40
20
0
2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

Source: Frontier

Cost assumptions for thermal power generation plants

Annexe 2: Power market modelling

171

172

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Table 5. Assumed overnight investment costs
EUR(real, 2013)/kW

2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

Hard coal

1,750

1,750

1,750

1,750

1,750

Natural Gas
(OCGT)

450

450

450

450

450

Natural Gas
(CCGT)

750

750

750

750

750

Hard coal (IGCC)
with CCS

2,750

2,750

2,750

2,750

2,750

Natural Gas
(CCGT) with CCS

1,200

1,200

1,200

1,200

1,200

CAES

806

806

806

806

806

AACAES

1,300

1,300

1,300

1,300

1,300

Power-to-Gas (toPower)

1,950

1,860

1,710

1,650

1,600

Pumped-HydroStorage

1,300

1,300

1,300

1,300

1,300

Nuclear

4,600

4,600

4,600

4,600

4,600

Source: Frontier

Annexe 2: Power market modelling

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

173

Table 6. Other costs elements
Fixed O&M costs
(EUR/MW)

Other variable
costs
(EUR/MWh_el)

CO2 Transport &
Storage Costs
(EUR/t CO2)

Hard coal

26,250

5

-

Lignite

36,000

4

-

Natural Gas
(OCGT)

6,750

15

-

Natural Gas
(CCGT)

11,250

10

-

Hard coal (IGCC)
with CCS

54,950

5

15

Natural Gas
(CCGT) with CCS

18,000

10

15

CAES

16,120

1.2

-

AACAES

26,000

1.2

-

Power-to-Gas (toPower)

45,000

1.2

-

Pumped-Hydro
Storage

26,000

0

-

Nuclear

69,000

2

-

Technology/Fuel

Source: Frontier

Development of generation capacities in the core-region (Base Case)
The power market model includes endogenous development of conventional
generation capacities in France, Germany, Belgium and Austria (core-region)
which takes into account known entries and retirements of power plants. The
development of renewable energy sources is included as exogenous assumption
based on:



Our assumptions for RES-E in Germany are based on the current legal
targets (EEG 2014) which aim at achieving a renewable electricity share
(% of net-consumption) of at least 80% in 2050.

Annexe 2: Power market modelling

174

Frontier Economics | September 2015



Our assumptions regarding the development of RES-E for France,
Belgium and Austria are based on the ENTSO-E SO&AF Scenario B
until 2025 and Vision 3 for 2030 (linear extrapolation afterwards).

Figure 80. Generation capacity and power generation in Germany (Base Case)
Operational generation capacity in GW (DE)
300

IC-import capacity
de-rated DSR

250

other
solar
ROR

200

GW

hydro
wind_on

150

wind_off
other_RES
100

oil
gas
coal

50

lig
nuclear

0
2015

2020

2023

2030

700

2035

66%

Peak Load
70%
Net-imports

60%

600

other

60%

solar
48%

wind_off

43%

400

40%
300

wind_on

50%

32%
30%

200

RES-E (%)

Power generation (TWh)

500

hydro
ROR

other_RES
gas (decentral)

20%

100

oil
gas

0

10%

-100

0%

coal

lig
2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

nuclear
RES-E (%)

Source. Frontier

Annexe 2: Power market modelling

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

Figure 81. Generation capacity and power generation in France (Base Case)
Operational generation capacity in GW (FR)
250

IC-import capacity
de-rated DSR
other

200

solar
ROR
hydro

GW

150

wind_on
wind_off
100

other_RES
oil
gas

50

coal

lig
nuclear

0
2013

2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

700

Peak Load
70%
Net-imports

60%

600

other

60%

solar

500

wind_on
wind_off

42%
40%

300
200

30%

hydro
ROR

other_RES
gas (decentral)

21%

100
18%
0

RES-E (%)

Power generation (TWh)

50%
400

20%

13%

oil
gas

10%

-100

coal

lig
-200

0%
2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

nuclear
RES-E (%)

Source. Frontier

Annexe 2: Power market modelling

175

176

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Figure 82. Generation capacity and power generation in Belgium (Base Case)
Operational generation capacity in GW (BE)
40

IC-import capacity
de-rated DSR

35

other
solar

30

ROR

GW

25

hydro
wind_on

20

wind_off
other_RES

15

oil
10

gas
coal

5

lig
nuclear

0
2013

2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

120

Peak Load
60%
Net-imports

51%
100

other
50%

solar

44%
40%
34%
30%
60

30%

40

20%

wind_off

RES-E (%)

Power generation (TWh)

wind_on
80

hydro
ROR

other_RES
gas (decentral)
oil

11%

gas

20

10%

0

0%

coal

lig
2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

nuclear
RES-E (%)

Source. Frontier

Annexe 2: Power market modelling

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

177

Figure 83. Generation capacity and power generation in Austria (Base Case)
Operational generation capacity in GW (AT)
45

IC-import capacity
de-rated DSR

40

other
35

solar
ROR

30

GW

hydro
25

wind_on
wind_off

20

other_RES
15

oil

10

gas
coal

5

lig
nuclear

0
2013

2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

90

Peak Load
90%
Net-imports

80

76%

80%

other

72%

70

solar

70%

65%

wind_on

57%

60%

50
50%
40
40%
30

wind_off

RES-E (%)

Power generation (TWh)

60

62%

30%

20

hydro
ROR

other_RES
gas (decentral)
oil

20%

10
0

10%

-10

0%

gas
coal

lig
2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

nuclear
RES-E (%)

Source. Frontier

Assumed development of capacities and power generation in other
modelled regions
Besides the core-region of the Netherlands, Germany, France and Belgium, the
power market model includes other regions in which the power generation is
modelled based exogenous development of generation capacity. The
development of generation capacities has been derived from ENTSO SO&AF
(2014):



Scenario B until 2025; and



Vision 3 for 2030 and linear extrapolation afterwards.

Annexe 2: Power market modelling

178

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Based on the capacity development indicated in ENSTOE SO&AF, derived our
assumption taking into account more recent market expectation. The figures
below show the resulting development of generation capacity (not affected by
sensitivity calculations) and the modelled power generation in the Base Case.
Figure 84. Assumed development of generation capacity (IT)
Installed generation capacity in GW (IT)
160

IC-import capacity
de-rated DSR

140

other
solar

120

ROR

GW

100

hydro
wind_on

80

wind_off
other_RES

60

oil
40

gas
coal

20

lig
nuclear

0

2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

Peak Load

Source: Frontier

Figure 85. Assumed development of generation capacity (CH)
Installed generation capacity in GW (CH)
50

IC-import capacity
de-rated DSR

45

other

40

GW

solar
35

ROR

30

hydro
wind_on

25

wind_off
20

other_RES

15

oil

gas
10

coal

5

lig
nuclear

0

2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

Peak Load

Source: Frontier

Annexe 2: Power market modelling

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

Figure 86. Assumed development of generation capacity (DK)
Installed generation capacity in GW (DK)
30

IC-import capacity
de-rated DSR

25

other
solar
ROR

20

GW

hydro
wind_on

15

wind_off
other_RES
10

oil

gas
coal

5

lig
nuclear

0

2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

Peak Load

Source: Frontier

Figure 87. Assumed development of generation capacity (CZ)
Installed generation capacity in GW (CZ)
25

IC-import capacity
de-rated DSR
other

20

solar
ROR
hydro

GW

15

wind_on
wind_off
10

other_RES
oil
gas

5

coal

lig
nuclear

0
2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

Peak Load

Source: Frontier

Annexe 2: Power market modelling

179

180

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Figure 88. Assumed development of generation capacity (PL)
Installed generation capacity in GW (PL)
60

IC-import capacity
de-rated DSR

50

other
solar
ROR

40

GW

hydro
wind_on

30

wind_off
other_RES
20

oil
gas
coal

10

lig
nuclear

0
2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

Peak Load

Source: Frontier

Impact of the sensitivities on power generation in all regions
The following figures show the impact of the sensitivities on power generation in
all modelled regions compared to the Base Case.
Figure 89. Impact on power generation, all regions (1a “low CO2-prices”)
Difference of generation (total system)
(1a “low CO2-prices” - Base Case)
40

other
hydro

30

other_RES

20

gas
(decentral)
ROR

TWh

10

solar

0

wind_on
wind_off

-10

oil
-20

gas

-30

coal
lig

-40
2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

nuclear

Source: Frontier

Annexe 2: Power market modelling

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

Figure 90. Impact on power generation, all regions (1b “high CO2-prices”)
Difference of generation (total system)
(1b “high CO2-prices” - Base Case)
40

other
hydro

30

other_RES

20

gas
(decentral)
ROR

TWh

10

solar

0

wind_on
wind_off

-10

oil
-20

gas

-30

coal
lig

-40
2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

nuclear

Source: Frontier

Figure 91. Impact on power generation, all regions (2 “High fuel prices”)
Difference of generation (total system)
(2 “high fuel prices” - Base Case)
40

other
hydro

30

other_RES

20

gas
(decentral)
ROR

TWh

10

solar

0

wind_on
wind_off

-10

oil
-20

gas

-30

coal
lig

-40
2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

Source: Frontier

Annexe 2: Power market modelling

nuclear

181

182

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Figure 92. Impact on power generation, all regions (3 “Slow growth of wind power”)
Difference of generation (total system)
(3 “slow growth of wind” - Base Case)
40

other
hydro

30

other_RES

20

gas
(decentral)
ROR

TWh

10

solar

0

wind_on
wind_off

-10

oil
-20

gas

-30

coal
lig

-40
2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

nuclear

Source: Frontier

Figure 93. Impact on power generation, all regions (4 “increased foreign capacity”)

Difference of generation (total system)
(4 “increased foreign capacity” - Base Case)
40

other
hydro

30

other_RES

20

gas
(decentral)
ROR

TWh

10

solar

0

wind_on
wind_off

-10

oil
-20

gas

-30

coal
lig

-40
2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

nuclear

Source: Frontier

Annexe 2: Power market modelling

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

183

Figure 94. Impact on power generation, all regions (5 “Higher DSR potential”)
Difference of generation (total system)
(5 "mode demand side participation" - Base Case)

other

40

hydro
30

other_RES

20

gas
(decentral)
ROR

TWh

10

solar

0

wind_on
wind_off

-10

oil
-20

gas

-30

coal
lig

-40
2015

2020

2023

2030

nuclear

2035

Source: Frontier

Development
(sensitivities)

of

power

imports/exports

of

the

Netherlands

The following figures show the development of power
(imports/exports) of the Netherlands in the modelled sensitivities.

exchange

Figure 95. Power Exchange NL – Sensitivity 1a “low CO2-prices”
30
NORDPOOL > NL
20
NL > NORDPOOL
10

DK > NL
NL > DK

0

TWh

GB > NL
-10

NL > GB
BE > NL

-20

NL > BE
-30
DE > NL
-40

NL > DE

Net-Imports

-50
2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

Source: Frontier

Annexe 2: Power market modelling

184

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Figure 96. Power Exchange NL – Sensitivity 1b “high CO2-prices”
30
NORDPOOL > NL
20
NL > NORDPOOL
10

DK > NL
NL > DK

0

TWh

GB > NL
-10

NL > GB
BE > NL

-20

NL > BE
-30
DE > NL
-40

NL > DE

Net-Imports

-50
2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

Source: Frontier

Figure 97. Power Exchange NL – Sensitivity 2 “high fuel prices”
30
NORDPOOL > NL
20
NL > NORDPOOL
10

DK > NL
NL > DK

0

TWh

GB > NL
-10

NL > GB
BE > NL

-20

NL > BE
-30
DE > NL
-40

NL > DE

Net-Imports

-50
2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

Source: Frontier

Annexe 2: Power market modelling

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

Figure 98. Power Exchange NL – Sensitivity 3 “Slow growth of wind power”
40
NORDPOOL > NL

30
NL > NORDPOOL

20
DK > NL
NL > DK

0

GB > NL

TWh

10

NL > GB

-10
BE > NL

-20
NL > BE
-30

DE > NL

-40

NL > DE

Net-Imports

-50
2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

Source: Frontier

Figure 99. Power Exchange NL – Sensitivity 4 “Increased foreign capacity”
30
NORDPOOL > NL
20
NL > NORDPOOL
10

DK > NL
NL > DK

0

TWh

GB > NL
-10

NL > GB
BE > NL

-20

NL > BE
-30
DE > NL
-40

NL > DE

Net-Imports

-50
2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

Source: Frontier

Annexe 2: Power market modelling

185

186

Frontier Economics | September 2015

Figure 100. Power Exchange NL – Sensitivity 5 “Higher DSR potential”
30
NORDPOOL > NL
20
NL > NORDPOOL
10

DK > NL
NL > DK

0

TWh

GB > NL
-10

NL > GB
BE > NL

-20

NL > BE
-30
DE > NL
-40

NL > DE

Net-Imports

-50
2015

2020

2023

2030

2035

Source: Frontier

De-rating factors and modelling of capacity remuneration mechanisms
(CRM)
The power market model includes additional constraints on the development of
installed capacity for France in the Base Case and for Belgium and France in
sensitivity 4 “Increased foreign capacity”. These constraints are included to
mimic the effect of capacity remuneration mechanisms on installed capacity and
plant dispatch and power prices. Section 3.4.5 includes a description of the
sensitivity. In this section, we provide additional information on the chosen
capacity credits and capacity demand.
Capacity supply is de-rated according to the maximum availability in peak-hours.
Table 7 shows the capacity credits that are used to de-rate capacity supply in the
model.

Annexe 2: Power market modelling

September 2015 | Frontier Economics

Table 7. Capacity credits for CRM supply
Power plant type

Capacity credit for CRM

Nuclear

93.1%

Lignite

89.6%

Hard Coal (with/without CCS)

89.6%

Gas (CCGT)

88.8%

Gas (OCGT)

82.1%

Oil

87.3%

Wind-offshore

11%

Wind-onshore

8%

Solar PV

2%

Biomass

65%

Run-of-river

48%

Pumped-Hydro-Storage

90%

Reservoir-Storage

85%

Power-to-Gas

85%

AACAES

85%

CAES

85%

DSR (load reduction)

90%

Source: Frontier

Annexe 2: Power market modelling

187

Frontier Economics Limited in Europe is a member of the Frontier Economics network, which
consists of separate companies based in Europe (Brussels, Cologne, London & Madrid) and Australia
(Melbourne & Sydney). The companies are independently owned, and legal commitments entered
into by any one company do not impose any obligations on other companies in the network. All
views expressed in this document are the views of Frontier Economics Limited.

FRONTIER ECONOMICS EUROPE
BRUSSELS | COLOGNE | LONDON | MADRID

Frontier Economics Ltd

Tel. +44 (0)20 7031 7000

71 High Holborn

Fax. +44 (0)20 7031 7001

London

WC1V 6DA

www.frontier-economics.com