IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v184y2024ics0301421523004494.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Selection bias in multi-technology auctions: How to quantify and assess efficiency implications in renewable energy auctions

Author

Listed:
  • Diallo, Alfa
  • Kitzing, Lena

Abstract

We develop a concept to identify and quantitatively assess technology selection bias in multi-technology renewable energy auctions. We show that simple price rules are insufficient to efficiently select winning projects in multi-technology tenders when they incorporate individual costs of producers only, and exclude system effects, market benefits and external costs. With our concept of quantifying unit social value, all relevant external elements can be incorporated in the evaluation. The introduction of an objective measure (as difference of differences between unit social value and auction bid prices) allows the quantitative assessment of systematic selection bias between technologies under different remuneration designs. We illustrate our concept by applying it to generic European renewable energy technologies (wind and solar energy) and major applied remuneration types (contract-for-difference and fixed premium schemes). We also show that are concept is applicable for real auction data, by presenting a case study about Italy. The main conclusion of the study is that selection by price only, can constitute a systematic bias for all investigated remuneration designs. Both schemes are in our case biased toward a given technology. The internalisation of external cost may not necessarily lead to better social outcomes in the selection of auction winners, as it can be overshadowed by the initial bias of the chosen remuneration design. We conclude that considerate design, including the potential differentiation of rules, e.g., through introduction of a technology bonus, to minimise selection bias, and careful monitoring of the competitive situation between participating technologies in a multi-technology auction are required to ensure efficient selection.

Suggested Citation

  • Diallo, Alfa & Kitzing, Lena, 2024. "Selection bias in multi-technology auctions: How to quantify and assess efficiency implications in renewable energy auctions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:184:y:2024:i:c:s0301421523004494
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113864
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421523004494
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113864?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maxim, Alexandru, 2014. "Sustainability assessment of electricity generation technologies using weighted multi-criteria decision analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 284-297.
    2. Paul Lehmann & Patrik Söderholm, 2018. "Can Technology-Specific Deployment Policies Be Cost-Effective? The Case of Renewable Energy Support Schemes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(2), pages 475-505, October.
    3. Inmaculada Guaita-Pradas & Ana Blasco-Ruiz, 2020. "Analyzing Profitability and Discount Rates for Solar PV Plants. A Spanish Case," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-13, April.
    4. del Río, Pablo & Linares, Pedro, 2014. "Back to the future? Rethinking auctions for renewable electricity support," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 42-56.
    5. Piotr W. Saługa & Krzysztof Zamasz & Zdzisława Dacko-Pikiewicz & Katarzyna Szczepańska-Woszczyna & Marcin Malec, 2021. "Risk-Adjusted Discount Rate and Its Components for Onshore Wind Farms at the Feasibility Stage," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-12, October.
    6. Lion Hirth, 2013. "The Market Value of Variable Renewables. The Effect of Solar and Wind Power Variability on their Relative Price," RSCAS Working Papers 2013/36, European University Institute.
    7. Gawel, Erik & Lehmann, Paul & Purkus, Alexandra & Söderholm, Patrik & Witte, Katherina, 2017. "Rationales for technology-specific RES support and their relevance for German policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 16-26.
    8. Gabrielli, Paolo & Wüthrich, Moritz & Blume, Steffen & Sansavini, Giovanni, 2022. "Data-driven modeling for long-term electricity price forecasting," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 244(PB).
    9. López Prol, Javier & Steininger, Karl W. & Zilberman, David, 2020. "The cannibalization effect of wind and solar in the California wholesale electricity market," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    10. Anatolitis, Vasilios & Azanbayev, Alina & Fleck, Ann-Katrin, 2022. "How to design efficient renewable energy auctions? Empirical insights from Europe," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    11. Mills, Andrew D. & Wiser, Ryan H., 2015. "Strategies to mitigate declines in the economic value of wind and solar at high penetration in California," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 269-278.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Melliger, Marc, 2023. "Quantifying technology skewness in European multi-technology auctions and the effect of design elements and other driving factors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    2. Brown, T. & Reichenberg, L., 2021. "Decreasing market value of variable renewables can be avoided by policy action," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    3. Eising, Manuel & Hobbie, Hannes & Möst, Dominik, 2020. "Future wind and solar power market values in Germany — Evidence of spatial and technological dependencies?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    4. Ruhnau, Oliver & Hirth, Lion & Praktiknjo, Aaron, 2020. "Heating with wind: Economics of heat pumps and variable renewables," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    5. Bolinger, Mark & Millstein, Dev & Gorman, Will & Dobson, Patrick & Jeong, Seongeun, 2023. "Mind the gap: Comparing the net value of geothermal, wind, solar, and solar+storage in the Western United States," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 999-1009.
    6. Dujardin, Jérôme & Schillinger, Moritz & Kahl, Annelen & Savelsberg, Jonas & Schlecht, Ingmar & Lordan-Perret, Rebecca, 2022. "Optimized market value of alpine solar photovoltaic installations," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 878-888.
    7. Mills, Andrew & Wiser, Ryan & Millstein, Dev & Carvallo, Juan Pablo & Gorman, Will & Seel, Joachim & Jeong, Seongeun, 2021. "The impact of wind, solar, and other factors on the decline in wholesale power prices in the United States," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 283(C).
    8. Harrison-Atlas, Dylan & Murphy, Caitlin & Schleifer, Anna & Grue, Nicholas, 2022. "Temporal complementarity and value of wind-PV hybrid systems across the United States," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 201(P1), pages 111-123.
    9. Gabrielli, Paolo & Aboutalebi, Reyhaneh & Sansavini, Giovanni, 2022. "Mitigating financial risk of corporate power purchase agreements via portfolio optimization," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    10. Darghouth, Naïm R. & Wiser, Ryan H. & Barbose, Galen & Mills, Andrew D., 2016. "Net metering and market feedback loops: Exploring the impact of retail rate design on distributed PV deployment," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 713-722.
    11. Finke, Jonas & Bertsch, Valentin & Di Cosmo, Valeria, 2023. "Exploring the feasibility of Europe’s renewable expansion plans based on their profitability in the market," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    12. Vazquez, Miguel & Hallack, Michelle, 2018. "The role of regulatory learning in energy transition: The case of solar PV in Brazil," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 465-481.
    13. Philipp Beiter & Aubryn Cooperman & Eric Lantz & Tyler Stehly & Matt Shields & Ryan Wiser & Thomas Telsnig & Lena Kitzing & Volker Berkhout & Yuka Kikuchi, 2021. "Wind power costs driven by innovation and experience with further reductions on the horizon," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(5), September.
    14. Lancker, Kira & Quaas, Martin F., 2019. "Increasing marginal costs and the efficiency of differentiated feed-in tariffs," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 104-118.
    15. Hugo Algarvio, 2023. "The Economic Sustainability of Variable Renewable Energy Considering the Negotiation of Different Support Schemes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-21, March.
    16. Kwon, Tae-hyeong, 2018. "Policy synergy or conflict for renewable energy support: Case of RPS and auction in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 443-449.
    17. Schmidt, Tobias S. & Sewerin, Sebastian, 2019. "Measuring the temporal dynamics of policy mixes – An empirical analysis of renewable energy policy mixes’ balance and design features in nine countries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    18. Brown, Patrick R. & O'Sullivan, Francis M., 2020. "Spatial and temporal variation in the value of solar power across United States electricity markets," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    19. Engelhorn, Thorsten & Müsgens, Felix, 2021. "Why is Germany’s energy transition so expensive? Quantifying the costs of wind-energy decentralisation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    20. Paul Lehmann & Patrik Söderholm, 2018. "Can Technology-Specific Deployment Policies Be Cost-Effective? The Case of Renewable Energy Support Schemes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(2), pages 475-505, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:184:y:2024:i:c:s0301421523004494. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.