Marketing Renewable Energy PDF

Management for Professionals
Carsten Herbes
Christian Friege
Editors
Marketing
Renewable Energy
Concepts, Business Models and Cases
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10101
Carsten Herbes • Christian Friege
Editors
Marketing Renewable
Energy
Concepts, Business Models and Cases
Editors
Carsten Herbes Christian Friege
University of Nuertingen-Geislingen Friege-Consulting
Nuertingen, Germany Stuttgart, Germany
ISSN 2192-8096 ISSN 2192-810X (electronic)

ISBN 978-3-319-46426-8 ISBN 978-3-319-46427-5 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-46427-5
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017936674
# Springer International Publishing AG 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Cover illustration: # Grüne Landschaft | steffi-bartels@gmx.de | 2014
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface
Fighting climate change in the world is a priority today for many people.
Transforming our energy system from a heavy reliance on fossil fuels towards
sustainability is deemed a major contributor to this goal. Therefore, many countries
around the world have set ambitious targets for the growth of renewable energy
(RE). In Germany, the “Energiewende” (energy transition) has been pursued for
almost 20 years now and has resulted in significant change of the energy system.
Often, the project is considered the most comprehensive change project of the
German society in the last decades. This development is carefully observed in many
countries, given that Germany is one of the largest economies in the world.
Ultimately, there is no role model for such a fundamental new direction in an
economy. While the case study of the Energiewende is frequently referred to in this
book, many countries all over the world have taken steps towards decarbonization
of their energy systems. After more conceptual contributions, examples from
different countries are also analyzed.
Technically, the production of energy from renewable sources is constantly
evolving. Meanwhile, however, other barriers appear. In countries where a particu-
larly strong expansion of renewables takes place, increasing acceptance problems
can be observed. This is mainly due to the local effects of wind mills or photovol-
taic systems on residents and even more fundamentally due to perceived negative
effects, for example, regarding the use of energy crops for bioenergy production or
the extra costs for taxpayers and consumers. One consequence of these acceptance
problems among the population is a declining willingness of policy makers to
further accelerate the expansion of RE by subsidies. In Germany, the example of
the significant cut-backs in the promotion of biogas underlines this. Another, often
more visible barrier is the insufficient integration of the generation of renewable
energy into the market and—as for green electricity—into grid management. These
issues become ever more limiting with increasing production of RE. These last two
factors, that is, the modified political support and the increasing need for the
integration of RE into existing and future structures of power distribution, require
a real marketing for RE.
For the German RE industry the change from long-term government guaranteed
feed-in tariffs (based on the Renewables Energy Act (REA) ) to an increasingly
market-based system is nothing less than a paradigm shift. It was precisely the
system of the REA, eliminating virtually all risks in the sales market, which led to
v
vi Preface
the strong expansion of renewables. Today, marketing to customers not only entails
substantial additional risks on the sales side, but requires completely new skills and
strategies in the RE industry.
This book is intended to support the adaption of marketing for RE. It has its roots
in a German language volume (Herbes, C./Friege, C. (Eds.): Marketing
Erneuerbarer Energien; Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler 2015), which originated at
the interface between universities and the energy industry. The positive uptake of
this book and many requests from international colleagues led to this English
edition. Many of the German contributions have been adapted and updated for
this book—and a number of new chapters were specifically added for this English
edition. The book is aimed at specialists and managers of utility companies, be they
large suppliers, municipal utilities, green power providers or renewable energy
cooperatives, and at teachers and students. The contributions are meant to enhance
the understanding of basal concepts that underlie the commercialization of RE. At
the same time, practical tools and strategies for the marketing of RE are explained.
The contributions often focus on green electricity, but also go beyond and expand
on other aspects of RE.
The first part of the book “Foundations of Renewable Energy Marketing”
collects contributions, which are relevant for RE marketing in general. Friege
and Herbes identify in their introductory chapter the basic marketing characteristics
of RE and develop an exemplary marketing mix for RE. Bloche-Daub et al. display
the global potential of RE explaining how big the RE markets may be in perspec-
tive. The contribution of Menges and Beyer analyzes consumer preferences com-
prehensively and systematically, thereby laying the foundation for a RE marketing
concept targeted at private consumers. RE products also open up special
opportunities for a direct sales model as the chapter by Friege shows. Tabi, Hille
and W€ ustenhagen explain, in which way target group segmentation can be achieved
in a green electricity market and a second contribution from the University of
St. Gallen by Chassot et al. reviews, whether providing green electricity as a default
product is an option. RE is a credence good that cannot be experienced directly in
its environmentally friendly properties by the consumer. Therefore, considerations
about certificates play a particularly important role in the elaboration of marketing
strategies. These certificates, their mechanism and function are the topic of the
contribution by Leprich, Hoffmann and Luxenburger.
Part two of the book looks at “Special Markets and New Business Models”.
Marketing strategies for biomethane are particularly complex, because there are
four parallel paths to the market. Herbes analyzes these paths in his essay within
their respective frameworks. Kl€ opfer and Kliemczak review the ever-growing
contracting market, where using RE leads to very specific considerations. Gervers
illustrates how RE can be used in the marketing of tourism enterprises. This is an
interesting market with travelers being increasingly aware of their environmental
responsibilities, who at the same time want to escape issues such as climate change
for a while. The fourth paper in this section comes from Schlemmermeier and
Drechsler. They present innovative business models, that originate in the
Preface vii
development of RE and in a fundamentally decentralized energy system. Marc

Ringel discusses in his essay the relationship between RE and electric mobility
leading to a new business model “Green Mobility”. Equally, Schott and Koch
present their view on the marketing of batteries as an enabler of marketing RE.
The concluding part of the book looks at “Marketing of Renewables in Regional
Markets”. Claudia Kemfert asks in her essay, whether the Energiewende in
Germany serves as a role model or leads into a dead end. Graichen, Redl and
Steigenberger from the German think tank Agora Energiewende explain successes
and challenges in the German Energiewende. Michel Cruciani allows for a view at
marketing green energy in France and Spataru and Arcuri focus on the situation in
the United Kingdom. Bigerna, Bollino and Polinori contribute an essay on market-
ing RE in Italy and J€org Raupach-Sumiya portrays in detail the market in Japan.
Thus a multitude of differing regulatory backgrounds are taken to discuss, in which
way RE can be marketed to customers, what the specifics of each market and
product are, and which challenges and opportunities stem from this. And all of this
is presented with the intention to allow for learning across borders and to contribute
to the further development of marketing of RE.
We would like to thank all authors, who made this book possible with their
conceptual and extensive practical knowledge and with admirable commitment.
They all aim to contribute to the successful commercialization of renewable
energies. Our thanks also go to Prashanth Mahagaonkar and Ruth Milewski, our
partners at Springer for the excellent support and to Nürtingen-Geislingen Univer-
sity for the provision of resources for the production of this book.
Nürtingen, Stuttgart Carsten Herbes

Christian Friege
Contents
Part I Foundations of Renewable Energy Marketing

Some Basic Concepts for Marketing Renewable Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Christian Friege and Carsten Herbes
Global Markets and Trends for Renewables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Karina Bloche-Daub, Janet Witt, Volker Lenz, and Michael Nelles
Consumer Preferences for Renewable Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Roland Menges and Gregor Beyer
Direct Selling of Renewable Energy Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Christian Friege
Market Segmentation for Green Electricity Marketing Results
of a Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis with German Electricity
Consumers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Stefanie Lena Hille, Andrea Tabi, and Rolf Wüstenhagen
Introducing Green Electricity as the Default Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Sylviane Chassot, Rolf Wüstenhagen, Nicole Fahr, and Peter Graf
Certificates in Germany’s Renewable Energy Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Uwe Leprich, Patrick Hoffmann, and Martin Luxenburger
Part II Special Markets and New Business Models

Marketing of Biomethane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Carsten Herbes
Renewable Energies in the Contracting Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Ralf Kl€
opfer and Ulrich Kliemczak
Renewable Energy in the Marketing of Tourism Companies . . . . . . . . . 189
Susanne Gervers
From Energy Supplier to Capacity Manager: New Business Models
in Green and Decentralized Energy Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Ben Schlemmermeier and Bj€orn Drechsler
ix
x Contents
Driving Renewables: Business Models for the Integration of Renewable

Energy and e-Mobility in Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Marc Ringel
Smart Battery Systems Driving Renewable Energy Markets . . . . . . . . . 259
Benjamin Schott and Oliver Koch
Part III Marketing of Renewables in Regional Markets

Exploiting the Economic Opportunities of the Energy Transition . . . . . 273
Claudia Kemfert
Building a Renewables-Driven Power System. Successes and Challenges
in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
Patrick Graichen, Christian Redl, and Markus Steigenberger
Marketing Renewable Energy in France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
Michel Cruciani
Marketing Renewable Energy in the United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
Catalina Spataru and Bruno Arcuri
Marketing Renewable Energy in Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
Simona Bigerna, Carlo Andrea Bollino, and Paolo Polinori
Marketing Renewable Energy in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375
J€org Raupach-Sumiya
List of Contributors
Bruno Arcuri UCL Energy Institute, London, UK

Gregor Beyer Clausthal University of Technology, Department of Macroeco-
nomics, Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany
Simona Bigerna Department of Economics, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy
Karina Bloche-Daub Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum gGmbH, Leipzig,
Germany
Carlo Andrea Bollino Department of Economics, University of Perugia, Perugia,
Italy
Sylviane Chassot Institute for Economy and the Environment, Good Energies
Chair for Management of Renewable Energies, University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen,
Switzerland
Michel Cruciani CGEMP, Université Paris-Dauphine, Paris, France
Björn Drechsler LBD-Beratungsgesellschaft mbH, Berlin, Germany
Nicole Fahr Institute for Economy and the Environment, Good Energies Chair for
Management of Renewable Energies, University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen,
Switzerland
Christian Friege Stuttgart, Germany
Susanne Gervers Hochschule für Wirtschaft und Umwelt Nürtingen-Geislingen,
Nürtingen, Germany
Peter Graf Institute for Economy and the Environment, Good Energies Chair for
Management of Renewable Energies, University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen,
Switzerland
Patrick Graichen Agora Energiewende, Berlin, Germany
Carsten Herbes Institute for International Research on Sustainable Management
and Renewable Energy, Nuertingen-Geislingen University, Nuertingen, Germany
xi
xii List of Contributors
Stefanie Lena Hille Institute for Economy and the Environment (IWÖ-HSG),
Good Energies Chair for Management of Renewable Energies, University of St.
Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland
Patrick Hoffmann IZES gGmbH, Saarbrücken, Germany
Claudia Kemfert German Institute for Economic Research (DIW), Berlin,
Germany
Hertie School of Governance, Berlin, Germany
Ralf Klöpfer MVV Energie AG, Mannheim, Germany
Ulrich Kliemczak MVV Energy Solutions GmbH, Mannheim, Germany
Oliver Koch sonnen GmbH, Wildpoldsried, Germany
Volker Lenz Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum gGmbH, Leipzig, Germany
Uwe Leprich IZES gGmbH, Saarbrücken, Germany
Martin Luxenburger IZES gGmbH, Saarbrücken, Germany
Roland Menges Clausthal University of Technology, Department of Macroeco-
nomics, Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany
Michael Nelles Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum gGmbH, Leipzig,
Germany
Waste Management and Material Flow of the Faculty of Agricultural and
Environmental Sciences of the University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany
Paolo Polinori Department of Economics, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy
Jörg Raupach-Sumiya College of Business Administration, Ritsumeikan Univer-
sity, Osaka, Japan
Christian Redl Agora Energiewende, Berlin, Germany
Marc Ringel Faculty of Economics and Law, Energy Economics, Nuertingen
Geislingen University, Geislingen, Germany
Ben Schlemmermeier LBD-Beratungsgesellschaft mbH, Berlin, Germany
Benjamin Schott sonnen GmbH, Wildpoldsried, Germany
Catalina Spataru UCL Energy Institute, London, UK
Markus Steigenberger Agora Energiewende, Berlin, Germany
Andrea Tabi Institute for Economy and the Environment (IWÖ-HSG), Good
Energies Chair for Management of Renewable Energies, University of St. Gallen,
St. Gallen, Switzerland
List of Contributors xiii
Rolf Wüstenhagen Institute for Economy and the Environment, Good Energies
Chair for Management of Renewable Energies, University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen,
Switzerland
Janet Witt Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum gGmbH, Leipzig, Germany
Faculty of Landscape Architecture, Horticulture and Forestry, University of
Applied Science Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany
Part I
Foundations of Renewable Energy Marketing
Some Basic Concepts for Marketing
Renewable Energy
Christian Friege and Carsten Herbes
Abstract
Against the background of a modern understanding of marketing, which stresses
value orientation and the interactive web, the attributes of renewable energy
(commodity, low-involvement product, credence good, partially public good,
product that needs explanation in two dimensions, and prosumer good), as well
as the aims of the consumers of renewable energy, a marketing mix for green
energy is developed. Policies on the product, pricing, distribution, and commu-
nication are analyzed in detail and presented with a particular focus on the
specifics of regenerative energy.
Keywords
Renewable energy • Green energy • Marketing
1 Introduction
Why does a separate analysis of the marketing of renewable energy not only
enhance our understanding but in fact serve as a necessary supplement to our
marketing knowledge? It is of course true that the fundamentals of marketing are
also applicable to the marketing of renewable energy. Additionally, the challenges
of differentiating commodities, turning low-involvement products into branded
A previous version of this chapter has been published in Herbes, C.; Friege, Chr. (Hrsg): Marketing
Erneuerbarer Energien. Grundlagen, Geschäftsmodelle, Fallbeispiele, 2015, Springer Gabler.
C. Friege (*)
Stuttgart, Germany
e-mail: cf@friege-consulting.de
C. Herbes
Institute for International Research on Sustainable Management and Renewable Energy,
Nuertingen-Geislingen University, Neckarsteige 6-10, 72622 Nuertingen, Germany
# Springer International Publishing AG 2017 3

C. Herbes, C. Friege (eds.), Marketing Renewable Energy, Management for
Professionals, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-46427-5_1
4 C. Friege and C. Herbes
products, and marketing new technologies that are still caught between subsidies,
testing, and commercial viability are also known per se. However, the marketing of
renewable energy is a significantly more complex matter. Its singular importance is
revealed by the comprehensive public debate about the energy revolution and the
opportunity to turn renewable energy into an engine of growth for the economy of
the twenty-first century. This puts the marketing of renewable energy into a unique
societal context, and the tasks of marketing experts are challenging, multifaceted,
and without any obvious examples from other industries or situations. Against this
backdrop, a number of conceptual considerations about the marketing of renewable
energy will be developed. The following issues will be addressed:
• Which understanding of marketing is suitable as a framework for the marketing

of renewable energy? Which societal changes must be taken into consideration
as the basis for distribution and marketing activities—in addition to a legal
framework and subsidies?
• Which aims of consumers are most important for the marketing of renewable
energy? Renewable energy grew out of the environmental movement and plays a
major role in the debate about global climate change. This aspect largely
influences the marketing of renewable energy.
• What are specific attributes of renewable energy and what are the effects of these
attributes on marketing strategies?
• What is the relevance of renewable energy as an input factor for the provision of
other goods and services? How can this input be utilized in their marketing?
In what follows, each of these questions is discussed in a separate section and a

summary with a focus on concrete action is provided.
For all these questions, we define renewable energy as follows:
Renewable energy includes those types of energy sources that are available in
virtually unlimited amounts (such as energy from the sun, wind or rivers), immedi-
ately grow again or are steadily available (biomass or bio-waste), and all forms of
energy (such as green electricity or heating power) that are fully derived from these
energy sources.
2 Marketing 3.0
Let us first of all address the issue of identifying a marketing concept that is suitable
as a framework for the marketing of renewable energy. Kotler et al. (2010) clearly
stress that the field of marketing has witnessed significant development over the
years and is currently characterized as marketing 3.0. It defines a modern form of
marketing as one that is embedded in social media, is based on many-to-many
communication, and actively accepts the idea of social responsibility of
corporations and integrates it into a marketing strategy (Fig. 1).
This value-based understanding of marketing is also stressed by the American
Marketing Association, which in 2013 defined marketing as “the activity, set of
Some Basic Concepts for Marketing Renewable Energy 5
Marketing 1.0 Marketing 2.0 Marketing 3.0

Product-centric Consumer-oriented Values-driven
Marketing Marketing Marketing
Objective Sell products Satisfy and retain the Make the world a
consumers better place
Enabling Industrial Information New wave technology

forces revolution technology / Web 2.0+*
How Mass buyers with Smarter consumer Whole human with

companies physical needs with mind and heart mind, heart, and spirit
see the
market
Key Product Differentiation Values

marketing development
concept
Company Product Corporate and product Corporate mission,

marketing specification positioning vision and values
guidelines
Value Functional Functional and Functional, emotional,

propositions emotional and spiritual
Interaction One-to-many One-to-one Many-to-many

with transaction relationship collaboration
consumers
* Social media propelled by (1) cheap computers and mobile phones etc., (2) inexpensive
internet access and (3) open source technology.
Fig. 1 Comparison of the marketing approaches 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 (source: adapted from Kotler
et al. (2010), p. 6)
institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging

offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large”
(AMA 2013, emphasis added). The arguments by Kotler et al. (2010) are grouped
around two focal points, value orientation and the interactive Web, that shape our
society in the twenty-first century. Both of these focal points are helpful in devel-
oping conceptual foundations for the marketing of renewable energy (Fig. 1).
1. Value orientation
Kotler et al. (2010) identify world improvement as the purpose of their
understanding of marketing and summarize as follows: “Instead of treating
people simply as consumers, marketers approach them as whole human beings
with minds, hearts, and spirits. Increasingly, consumers are looking for solutions
to their anxieties about making the globalized world a better place. In a world
full of confusion, they search for companies that address their deepest needs for
social, economic and environmental justice in their mission, vision and values.
They look for not only functional and emotional fulfilment but also human spirit
fulfilment in the products and services they choose. . . .Supplying meaning is the
future value proposition in marketing” (pp. 4, 20). This includes a holistic

perspective on the consumer as a market perspective [“Marketing 3.0 lifts the
concept of marketing into the arena of human aspirations, values and spirit”
(p. 4)] and a business, which submits to its own explicit value framework in
addition to mission and vision.
2. Interactive Web
So-called new wave technology (Kotler et al. 2010, p. 6, Fig. 1) is interpreted
in Fig. 1 as Web 2.0þ since it refers not only to the Internet as a platform and
technology but also to its rapid global spread based on the availability of
inexpensive hardware (particularly smartphones and tablet computers that
make mobile Internet access possible), simple and inexpensive Internet access,
and open-source technologies, which allow easy access to software and its quick
updating. Of similar importance is the developing culture of online collabora-
tion, either via quick communication in social media (many-to-many) or via
online cooperation (co-creation, crowdsourcing, and so forth). Value orientation
and an interactive web characterize social realities as well as modern marketing
3.0. For that reason, they are also appropriate measures by which to classify the
particular features of renewable energy and are suitable for use as a conceptual
framework for further considerations.
3 Attributes of Renewable Energies and Their Effects

on the Marketing of Renewable Energy
Renewable energies are characterized by a number of common attributes: they are

(1) commodities, (2) low-involvement products and at the same time (3) credence
goods. They are (4) partially public goods and (5) require explanation in two
dimensions. Finally, they increasingly become (6) prosumer goods. What are the
causes and effects of these attributes of renewable energy? What is the role of the
two elements of marketing 3.0 mentioned earlier, namely the web and value
orientation?
(1) Commodities
Commodities are goods with a quality that is subject to clearly defined
criteria. Therefore, there is no differentiation and they are fully fungible, in
other words interchangeable. Prices of commodities are typically determined at
trading places or exchanges. Electricity and gas are typical commodities, as are
fuels; the heating market, for example, is derived from the commodity market
for energy.
Value orientation means that it is not only the defined quality that matters for
renewable energy, but rather the energy source, which becomes the decisive
criterion for customers’ purchase decision. At issue is not so much the com-
modity of electricity or gas, for example, but rather the differentiation resulting
from its generation from renewable primary energy. This differentiation is
supported by the interactive Web, which not only provides detailed information
about energy production but also facilitates discussion in the relevant
communities. In addition, the Internet also allows for the comprehensive

presentation of the different types of certifications that guarantee the origin of
the renewable energy [on this issue see Leprich et al. (2017)].
(2) Low-involvement products
The extent of involvement with a product prior to the buying decision is
defined as “a person’s perceived relevance of the object based on inherent
needs, values and interests” (Zaichkowsky 1985, p. 342). Electricity, gas, and
fuel are generally considered to be low-involvement products (e.g., Busch et al.
(2009); Lohse and Künzel (2011)).
Thanks to the value orientation, the offering can be differentiated not alone
via brand development (as is the case for mineral oil fuels), but in addition via
the societal positioning of the product as a contribution to slowing down
climate change, using resources in a sustainable manner, and so forth. “Making
the world a better place” as an aim of marketing 3.0 becomes particularly
apparent in this regard. The activating effect of the interactive web further
strengthens this positioning. As an example, the platform utopia.de was
established with the explicit aim of “contributing towards sustainable change
in the consumer behavior and lifestyle of millions of people” (Utopia 2014).
Forums on a wide range of topics, especially concerning energy and energy
consumption, can be found there.
(3) Credence goods
Green electricity and biomethane are credence goods. Meffert et. al. (2015,
pp. 38–39) define the credence qualities of a service or good as follows: “In this
case the consumer is unable to ascertain certain attributes or qualities either
before or after the purchase, even though these attributes are important to him
and he is willing to pay an appropriate price for them.” This is apparently also
the case for renewable energy, since the consumer—apart from certifications
(Leprich et al. 2017)—has no way of ascertaining whether the stated energy
sources were in fact utilized and what ecological value added is indeed
achieved when purchasing the product. The same is true for the use of renew-
able energy in transportation services and in the offerings of tourism companies
(Gervers 2017) or in the case of e-mobility (Ringel 2017). In every instance, the
consumer ultimately depends on the promise that a “green” contribution is
indeed being made.
In a study about credence goods, Dulleck et al. (2011) found that a significant
share of the providers are in fact honest. In comparison, the subsequent verifi-
cation of the attributes of a credence good—even where this would be possi-
ble—has no particular significance. Of much greater importance is the liability
for the promised services—in the case of renewable energy, this is replaced
mainly by reputation.1
1
However, Dulleck et al. (2011) only assigned high relevance to reputation in cases where liability
and competition were not strongly developed. In the case of renewable energy, reputation largely
replaces liability.
In principle, value-oriented marketing is more suitable for creating the

necessary trust. Corporations with a focus on value will be able to construct
their orientation and positioning in such a way that mission, vision, and values
are highly consistent and integrated and that any deviation from them would
result in a massive loss of reputation, providing incentives to adhere to the self-
imposed set of values. The necessary transparency is assured in this case via the
social control of the interactive web, which also enhances the reputational risk
as guarantor of appropriate behavior.
(4) Partially public goods
The aspect of climate protection turns renewable energy into a partially
public good. Assuming that any increase in the demand for renewable energy
also results in increased production and thus in a reduction of CO2 emissions,
which in turn contributes to a slowing of climate change, everybody benefits
from the decision of an individual to purchase renewable energy products,
including all persons who remain inactive. This supports free rider behavior
and ultimately results in a suboptimal market outcome (e.g., Menges and Beyer
2017).
Value orientation in marketing and by consumers works against this free
rider problem, and the motivation to reach conscious and socially responsible
purchasing decisions is promoted if corporate values are stressed, especially if
they are in line with the values of the target customer. Furthermore, the
psychological benefit of the “warm glow”, in other words the positive feeling
of superiority which comes with a good deed, is value based.
The interactive web significantly facilitates the generation of an additional
psychological benefit for the consumer via demonstrative consumption: “self-
expressive benefits from conspicuous environmentally sound consumption”
(Hartmann and Apaolaza-Ibá~nez 2012, p. 1254). Thus it is not merely the social
control but also the self-portrayal of the environmentally conscious purchase
that is facilitated significantly by the Internet and the social media
(on renewable energy as input factors, see the following section “Relevance
of Renewable Energy as an Input Factor in Marketing Other Goods and
Services”).
(5) Goods that require an explanation in two dimensions
It may appear surprising at first glance that renewable energy is characterized
both as a commodity and a good requiring explanation. It is its origin that leads
to differentiation (see earlier discussion) and thus also calls for explanations.
This is true at two different levels: initially, the basic attributes of the product
need to be explained, especially its origin, but additional questions directly
related to the product (for example the connection to a local heat network) must
also be answered. In addition, questions about the effect of the purchasing
decision on overarching goals, such as the implementation of the energy
revolution or the containment of climate change, must be asked at a second
level.
This second level of explanation very directly requires the value orientation
postulated by marketing 3.0, which allows for differentiation and specifically
provides entry points for product and communication policies. This mechanism
is again intensified by the interactive web, which not only facilitates the transfer
of knowledge among target customers but additionally transports the—in parts
certainly not trivial—explanations of the providers.
(6) Prosumer goods
Especially renewable energy is increasingly consumed and produced simul-
taneously by the end customers of the utilities and is thus a typical example of a
prosumer good. This will fundamentally change the energy sector
(Schlemmermeier and Drechsler 2017) but at the same time pose new
challenges for the marketing of renewable energy.
Especially during the transitional period between high subsidies for renew-
able energy, which was formative in Germany until the Renewable Energy Act
2014, and the clearly apparent movement towards more market-based solutions
and new market models—for example in the new Renewable Energy Act, but
also in the discussion about the best electricity market design (Schlemmermeier
and Drechsler 2017)—many decisions, and especially buying decisions,
concerning renewable energy are driven by the corresponding value orienta-
tion. Why? Compared to the situation a few years ago, investments of private
households in photovoltaic systems only generate rather small returns. Thus
financial considerations are less and less sufficient as an investment motive, and
value-oriented targets such as environmental and climate protection, as well as
increased independence from major utilities, gain in importance.
In this situation, marketing requires a meeting of similar values shared by the
supply and demand sides. And again the interactive web serves as a platform
that amplifies communication and interaction. But above all, it serves as the
technological platform for the informational connection of the energy distribu-
tion networks, which is a decisive component of smart grids and the
corresponding management of the demand and supply sides.
As a first conclusion of the arguments presented, it can be stated that the six
highlighted attributes of renewable energy are characteristic and relevant for
marketing. In addition, numerous aspects confirm that the description of marketing
that Kotler et al. (2010) have labeled marketing 3.0, especially the value orientation
and the interactive web, are particularly suitable for the marketing of renewable
energy. It is thus not surprising that a modern understanding of marketing,
influenced by our societal reality, and the challenges stemming from that reality,
namely the need to market a fundamentally new product category, come together in
multiple ways.
4 Aims of Consumers When Buying Renewable Energy
The societal framework for the marketing of renewable energy developed in the
previous section would remain incomplete if it did not incorporate the specific
motives and motivations for supply and demand in the market for renewable
energy.
The starting point for the diffusion of renewable energy is the concern about the
long-term environmental effects of fossil fuels and nuclear power and the increas-
ing awareness about climate change and its effects. Environmental awareness is one
of the most important psychographic drivers of purchasing decisions and willing-
ness to pay for renewable energy (Rowlands et al. 2002; MacPherson and Lange
2013; Herbes et al. 2015). Thus the primary issue is not a new business idea, but
rather a value-driven innovation in the sense of Kotler et al. (2010).
A first approach to understanding the motivation of consumers who purchase
renewable energy and who frequently are willing to pay more than for products that
do not incorporate renewable energy is provided by the motivation of private
households to invest their savings in renewable energy projects, and it differs
from the motives of institutional investors. An analysis of the motivation for
investments in renewable energy by institutional investors shows that financial
goals dominate (e.g., Taylor Wessing 2012, p. 12). In the case of private investors,
who are decisive in the spread of renewable energy and are responsible for
increasingly decentralized production, the motive of sustainability clearly plays
an important role (see overview of Friege and Voss 2015): investments by private
investors are thus driven both by considerations of sustainability and values as well
as by financial incentives. A similar motivation can also be assumed when it comes
to the consumption patterns of these private investors.
This is also confirmed in detail by a comprehensive analysis of the literature (see
overview by Herbes and Ramme [2014] in Fig. 2). The motivation of consumers
can fundamentally be organized in two groups: first, the purchase is expected to
lead to actual change, such as a limitation on climate change. Second, the purchase
helps the purchaser to feel better or to achieve a status gain.
(1) Actual change/utilitarian benefits

Consumers want to accomplish aims or maximize benefits by targeting real
change, which is beneficial not only to themselves but to others as well,
so-called utilitarian benefits. In this case altruism plays a role as a basic value
(Litvine and Wüstenhagen 2011). These utilitarian benefits include, for exam-
ple, environmental and climate protection, regional production or the support of
specific ways to generate renewable energy. At the same time, consumers want
to assure that the renewable energy contracts they select actually contribute
towards achieving these targets, so that their purchasing decision has a real
effect (“perceived consumer effectiveness”). This is related to the attributes of a
credence good, discussed earlier. Consumers can assess the effects of their
purchasing decisions with the help of information about the renewable energy
product or with reference to labels.
Factors that can be

influenced by marketers
Utilitarian benefits Psychological benefits
Perceived consumer
Final goals „Warm Glow“
effectiveness
Environmental
Information on the
protection, esp. Conspicuous
environmental impact of
Reduction of CO2 consumption
the product
emissions
Supporting regional
Labels
production
Promoting certain types

New RES facilities
of RE technologies
Fig. 2 Overview of the aims of buyers of renewable energy contracts (adapted from Herbes and
Ramme (2014), p. 259)
(2) Psychological benefit

In addition to the so-called utilitarian benefits, consumers can also derive
so-called psychological benefits from their purchasing decision (Hartmann and
Apaolaza-Ibá~ nez 2012). To some extent they are not as aware of these types of
benefits compared to the previously mentioned goals of environmental or
climate protection. Nonetheless, these types of benefits are important. One of
them is the so-called warm glow, the pleasant feeling of moral superiority that
results from a good deed. A second aspect is the gain in social distinction that
can be derived from the demonstrative consumption of renewable energy. For
the warm glow it is not necessary that the act of consumption be observed by a
third party; however, it is decisive for demonstrative consumption. With all the
focus on value orientation, it also needs to be pointed out that the average green
electricity rate in Germany is only 2 % above the corresponding gray electricity
rate and that consumers are in some cases even able to reduce their cost when
switching to a green rate (Top agrar online 2012). Thus financial motives are
likely to play a role as well.
Distributers of renewable energy always need to keep an eye on the entire target
portfolio of their (potential) customers and use it as the basis of their marketing mix,
particularly in their product and communication policies.
5 Marketing Mix for Renewable Energy
Now that marketing 3.0 has been revealed in principle as a suitable concept for
marketing renewable energy and six major attributes of renewable energy have
been proposed for the conceptual presentation of the marketing activities, the most
important aspects of the so-called 4Ps that are common to all renewable energy
products must be identified, including the motives for demanding renewable energy
(Fig. 3).
5.1 Product Policy for Renewable Energy
The major importance of the origin of green electricity, biomethane, and heating
power when configuring renewable energy products was already stressed earlier.
The origin is mainly documented via certificates and detailed presentations of all
power plants on the Internet.
(1) Certificates, or quality labels, serve several functions (Manta 2012; Leprich
et al. 2017):
a. Commodities such as electricity or gas are assigned specific attributes, which
imply a sort of de-commoditization,
b. Customers may select from among different product specifications based on
their preferences,
c. The certificate/quality label confirms the attributes specified,
d. Providers use certificates to differentiate their products.
An interrelationship exists between certificates and the degree of customer
involvement. Manta (2012) demonstrated that the relevance of quality labels
increases as customer degree of involvement is reduced. Quality labels are also
more relevant than product attributes. However, earlier studies found a rela-
tively minor relevance of certificates for the buying decision of customers in the
field of green electricity (Kaenzig et al. 2013).
Corporations and certifiers have recently presented the first quality label that
goes beyond an assessment of the product and instead includes an overall
evaluation of the provider. For “pioneers of the energy revolution” it has
been confirmed that “goals and requirements of the energy revolution are not
only firmly anchored in the corporate policy, but are also applied consistently in
practice” (TÜV Süd 2014). The focus on differentiation becomes particularly
Product Price Policy Distribution Communica-

Policy Policy tion Policy
Commodities • Differentiated • High price • Differentiation • Marketing is

by origin transparency via distribution decisive for
• Differentiation channels differentiation
of services and from
customer commodities
retention
Low • Product • High price • Direct • Decisive is the

involvement components sensitivity distribution or identification of
products that increase online communication
involvement distribution – opportunities
• Certificates many of the
classical
channels are
problematic
Credence • Origin defines • Competitive • Direct • Brand building

goods the product price distribution, • Endorsements
• Certification online from
• Use of distribution or environmental
reputation distribution via agencies
existing • Sponsoring of
customers – the climate
focus is always protection
on trust projects
Partially • Product must • Willingness to • Convincing • Communicate

public goods allow pay is limited by customers to usefulness for
differentiation free rider achieve customers and
from free riders behavior differentiation society at large
from free riders
Explanations • Increased • Differentiation • Suitable for • Different

required in complexity via second level direct perspectives
two of usefulness distribution allow additional
communication
dimensions
Prosumer • Strongly • Leads to • Innovative • Complex

goods dependent on significantly distribution communications
regulation of reduced price channels challenges
renewable transparency
energy
• Complexity due
to uncertainty
about future
developments
Fig. 3 Marketing mix for renewable energy

apparent in this case. In addition, it has become increasingly clear that it is

ultimately the reputation of the provider that ensures the attributes certified.
(2) Online presentation of all power plants
The offering of green electricity is occasionally supported by a detailed
presentation of the facilities in use on the web pages of the provider. Transpar-
ency appears to be prima facie greater in the case of “pure providers of green
electricity” in Germany compared to suppliers of green and grey electric-
ity (Friege & Herbes, 2015, p. 15). Most providers rely only on the legally
required proof of origin.
The potential importance of this transparency can be derived from the results
of a survey by the federal environmental agency (UBA 2014). As an example,
of 100 users of proofs of origin in Germany, only 27 obtain them in combina-
tion with physical delivery (p. 60). Of the 27, 2 stated that they obtain their
electricity from the electricity exchange EEX (p. 64), which obviously makes
the combined purchase impossible.
Decisive for the product combination is the question whether an additional

ecological benefit should be offered and, if so, what kind (see comprehensive
discussion in Leprich et al. 2017). Not all certificates demand the same standards.
Most importantly, however, it is possible to achieve a high standing of certificates
among consumers, even though the purchase of green electricity triggers no addi-
tional investments in power plants or does not support the energy revolution in any
other way. This is the case, for example, if the green electricity is generated
exclusively in old hydropower plants, which in some cases have already been in
operation for more than 100 years. A different option for obtaining an ecological
value added is, for example, the “sun cent” of the green utility EWS,2 which may,
however, in the meantime be obsolete owing to the effective subsidies from the
Renewable Energy Act and the fact that grid parity has meanwhile been achieved.
Against this backdrop, the certification of companies is an interesting approach,
which makes it easier for consumers to identify those energy suppliers that are
serious about the energy revolution.
Another example of product attributes that are suitable to support
de-commoditization are—especially for commercial customers—certificates of
origin that can be placed prominently around business premises (e.g. saying “Our
goods are manufactured using solely (brand name) green energy.”). They are also
suitable for achieving a certain differentiation from free riders. Both the support
contributions and the certificates of origin can at the same time be used to increase
customer involvement.
All these measures in the field of product policy aim at differentiating the prod-
uct. In addition, Enke et al. (2011) point out that de-commoditization can also be
achieved via superior customer relations. Of course, this is also a possible approach
for further product differentiation when offering renewable energy. For example,
2
http://www.ews-schoenau.de/oekostrom/kundenfoerderung.html; accessed 14 December 2014.
LichtBlick, a provider of green energy, can document that it has implemented this
approach. Thanks to its superior customer orientation, the company has held the
leading position—in addition to many other awards—among all energy providers,
including those companies that distribute electricity of unknown origin, in the
German Customer Monitor (Deutscher Kundenmonitor) for 6 years in a row
(LichtBlick 2014).
All these product attributes will ultimately imply higher complexity, which
results in the need to provide explanations about renewable energy products in
two different dimensions. Complexity grows further if renewable energy is increas-
ingly established in the market as a prosumer good. This widens the range of
relevant products to include contracting and the efficient generation of energy by
customers (Kl€ opfer and Kliemczak 2017), in addition to the traditional matters of
distribution of green electricity, sustainably generated heating power, or
biomethane. It must be pointed out in this context that the uncertainty surrounding
regulatory framework conditions and technological progress is currently huge.
Nonetheless, even if these effects are uncertain, they need to be considered when
structuring new products.
Overall, the product policy for renewable energy is dominated by the product
component “energy source” and the relevant documentation for the customer,
ideally in the form of a transparent additional ecological benefit. With the growing
importance of prosumers as customers, the challenge will be to structure extremely
complex products in such a way that they can be explained and, thus, placed
successfully in the market.
5.2 Pricing Policy for Renewable Energy
Looking at the entries in the column “pricing policy” in Fig. 3, contradictions

appear to be present. The high price transparency that follows from the fact that we
are dealing with a commodity is reduced by the growing importance of prosumer
goods in the field of renewable energy. This is basically plausible since there can be
no doubt that the ability to differentiate among various combinations of generation
and use—notwithstanding all the work concerning certificates and documentation
of production units—is larger.
More interesting, however, are the effects concerning low-involvement products
and credence goods, where price plays a larger role than most other attributes; for
different reasons there is a specific focus on the price when the purchase decision is
made. In the case of low-involvement products, the price is a simple indicator and
replaces any examination of the brand or the product3; in the case of credence
goods, it is predominantly competition that sets the price (Dulleck et al. 2011). In
3
For example: “In contrast, the involvement in the case of utilities tends to be lower. Without
involvement, true brand loyalty cannot emerge.. . .The lower the involvement, the higher is the
importance of market factors such as market presence or price.” (TNS Infratest 2008).
this context, the issue of additional ecological benefits of renewable energy

becomes a second area in need of explanation on top of the differentiation accom-
plished by the product policy.
Current research on the willingness to pay for renewable energy is mainly
characterized by methodological debates. These debates are fueled by the fact
that studies about the willingness to pay regularly present encouraging results,
whereas the actual numbers of customers who switch to green electricity contracts
of high quality are much lower (Rowlands et al. 2002; Kaenzig et al. 2013; Stigka
et al. 2014).
The study by A.T. Kearney (2012) (Fig. 4) reveals scope for action for the years
2011 and 2012. Analyzed as “pure providers of green electricity” are LichtBlick,
Tchibo,4 Naturstrom, and EWS. Looking at the price charged, a pure provider of
green electricity obtains a price premium of EUR 120 compared to municipal
utilities and EUR 125 compared to discounters in 2012. The numbers are slightly
lower for 2011, at EUR 80 and EUR 100, respectively.
Assuming the costs of certificates of origin were approximately EUR 4/MWh for
the year 2012 (this relates to newer hydropower from Austria) (UBA 2014), it becomes
apparent that the consumer who was taken as the basis of the calculation in Fig. 4 had
to absorb a maximum cost difference of EUR 14. It can thus be shown that an
ecological structure of the renewable energy product not only results in the availability
of a price premium but is also relatively more profitable. On the other hand, the price
differences between green electricity and grey electricity are so low that it can be
safely assumed that old Norwegian hydropower with costs for the certificates of origin
of less than EUR 1 was used as the basis of the calculations in Fig. 4.
And indeed, the federal environmental office (UBA) compares the costs of the
certificates of origin indicatively with the costs for rebuilding the energy system in
its study and reaches the following conclusion: “Given these conditions, final
consumers cannot expect that the choice of a green electricity rate contributes
towards the financing of the further development of renewable energies” (UBA
2014, p. 146).
On balance, the high price premiums of the past will not be sustainable over
time. This is supported by the following arguments:
• Increased supply of renewable energy, which is increasingly competitive in the

marketplace due to the passage of the Renewable Energy Act;
• Willingness to pay is limited by potential free riders—the higher the difference
between the so-called market price without additional ecological benefit and
price of renewable energy, the more relevant will be the attribute of renewable
energy as a partially public good;
4
Since 2010, the coffee shop and retailer have been offering green electricity, which is certified by
ok-power and TÜV, respectively, however, without naming the power plants of origin. The
“climate-friendly gas” is created through a complete compensation of CO2 emissions via gold
standard certificates (Tchibo 2014).
Price Comparison for Providers of Green Energy in Germany

(EUR/household with annual consumption of 3,500 kWh
Price positioning (2011-2012)
970
905 890
835 845 850 860
780 790 810
2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012
Cheapest Discounter - Municipal Utilities/ Basic Utilities Pure
Discounter Green Electricity Secondary Brands Ecological Providers1
Grey electricity Green electricity
1. Check24 selection of providers; Tchibo; Naturstrom; EW Schönau for Berlin, Munich and Hamburg prepaid
with deposit, not considering one time bonus; as of September 2012
Source: EEX; Check 24; Interviews; A.T.Kearney
Fig. 4 Comparison of prices of providers of green electricity in Germany (Source: A. T. Kearney

2012, p. 27)
• The continued high support for the energy revolution (Losse 2014) should not
mask the fact that energy nonetheless remains a low-involvement product, and
thus the willingness to pay is limited
• Finally, online portals, which are driven purely by price, continue to hold a
major market share: “Already 80 % of households obtain information from a
comparison portal and close to 50 % switch online” (A. T. Kearney 2012, p. 3).
In the case of biomethane, the setting of prices is more challenging for suppliers
compared to electricity from renewable energy since, depending on the products
used, the production and purchase costs for biomethane can be significantly higher
than those for natural gas (Herbes et al. 2016). Unlike electricity from renewable
energy, the additional costs are not single-digit percentages but can easily be twice
as high in the case of 100 % biomethane products. For the pricing policy of
renewable energy, this implies that it follows directly from the product policy: the
more transparent the differentiation of the renewable energy product is, the more it
contrasts with other renewable energy products, the more understandable is the
ecological usefulness, and the more the involvement of customers can be devel-
oped, then the more likely there will be a price premium in the future. Support in
this direction will also come from a trend towards prosumer goods.
5.3 Distribution Policy for Renewable Energy
In some sense, the distribution policy follows the product and pricing policies
(Fig. 3): the stronger the product configuration supports a competitive—also
vis-à-vis basic suppliers in electricity and gas—price, the easier it will be to
distribute the renewable energy product online. Finalization of contracts and com-
prehensive explanations are not only easily done online these days, but such a
distribution channel is even state of the art. This is the case not only for electricity or
gas contracts but also, for example, for the distribution of roof solar panels in the
USA, which to a large degree takes place online as well.
At the same time, the need to provide explanations in two dimensions about
renewable energy products requires conversations with the customer, and for that
reason renewable energy products are also very suitable for direct selling, both as
prosumer good “rooftop solar panels for partial self-sufficiency” and as utility
product green electricity and eco-gas. This distribution channel is particularly
suitable in situations where the additional ecological benefit is pronounced, when
the product is complex, or if the response is otherwise unsatisfactory due to the
low-involvement attributes (on this issue see Friege 2016).
A. T. Kearney (2012) reports that in the first half of 2012, approximately half of
the changes in providers and rates for electricity and gas contracts were
implemented online, more than one fourth were initiated via direct distribution,
while the share of the next largest distribution channel, telephone sales, is approxi-
mately 10 %. Because of the restrictive regulations in Germany, the latter channel is
mainly limited to contract changes with the same provider.
However, in addition to the dominant channels online and direct distribution, an
additional important distribution channel are referrals by existing customers. While
this channel only leads to high growth rates in absolute terms if the initial level of
customers is high, it is also a lasting form of advertising characterized by low costs.
As the market research institute YouGov states: “Close to 20 % of the customers
currently state that over the past two weeks they had conversations with others
about EWS Sch€ onau. In the case of other companies, this number is at most half as
large” (Geißler 2014). It can also be assumed that this will have a positive effect on
referrals by friends.
Compared to these three channels (online, direct selling, referrals by friends) all
others are far less effective: telephone sales are strongly limited by legal rules, the
response rates of direct mail are mostly too low, while advertisements, bill boards,
and radio and TV spots rarely achieve satisfactory and measurable results.
Finally, it needs to be pointed out that innovative multiple distribution channels

will develop for complex renewable energy products characterized as prosumer
goods. While a broad-based configuration still needs to evolve, a framework for
such a multichannel strategy is already established (Friege 2017).
And thus, the distribution policy for renewable energy turns out to be a perfect fit
for marketing 3.0: distribution of renewable energy is value-driven, and this
conviction is transported personally (direct distribution, referral by existing
customers) or via the interactive web (online marketing, anchoring in social
media). Trust in the sales representative, the customer who recommends the
service, and the service offered takes center stage and is coupled with the assurance
that a legitimate provider does not want to risk the loss of reputation.
5.4 Communication Policy for Renewable Energy
An important instrument for de-commoditization is brand management, which

obviously needs to be implemented across all components of the marketing mix
and is still included at this point in the context of communication policy. Why?
Especially in the context of renewable energy, target-specific communication is
decisive for creating awareness of the service differentiation. Wiedmann and
Ludewig (2011), for example, develop the brand positioning for a municipal utility
and summarize their resulting “corporate branding story” (p. 106) as follows: now
the task is to communicate the developed brand positioning.
Concerning the communication aspects of brand management, the mineral oil
industry may offer a few suggestions. Major providers, for example, have success-
fully established premium gasoline brands, which are about EUR 0,05 - EUR
0,10 more expensive per liter compared to diesel or premium gasoline. Advertising,
testimonials, sponsorships, and customer management were used (M€oller and
Roltsch 2011). As a rough sketch transferred to renewable energy, motorsport
sponsorship will be replaced by support for climate protection projects and
testimonials of Formula 1 pilots by the recommendations of environmental
agencies. This was done, for example, by 17 environmental organizations that in
the initiative “Quitting Nuclear Power—Let Us Do It Ourselves” support the switch
to EWS, Greenpeace Energy, LichtBlick, or Naturstrom in Germany.5 Marketing
for renewable energy products will consist predominantly of transparent online
information and active participation in the interactive web. The importance of
customer management was already stressed when presenting the product policy
for renewable energy. At this point, client-focused communication must be added.
In the context of the transparent presentation of renewable energy products and
their suppliers, an effort will be made to build trust, which in the current environ-
ment is more than ever the result of truthful, complete, and transparent communi-
cation (Friege 2010). This also includes the need to point out the benefits for
5
http://www.atomausstieg-selber-machen.de/ accessed 2 February 2015.
customers and society at large to reduce free rider behavior (Fig. 3). Unlike with
many other products, any communication by providers is accompanied by a politi-
cal and public media discussion, which can sometimes be very intense. In such
discussions, storylines such as “plate or tank” respectively “maizification” (large
quantities of maize being grown as an energy crop) are created (on this issue see
Herbes et al. 2014), which run contrary to the interests of the suppliers of
biomethane. The timely reaction of the providers is required in these instances.
It is also important to address all possible utility categories of renewable energy
customers (Fig. 2) in the communication. For example, customers can be supported
in their efforts to display conspicuous consumption if they are provided with
information or stories by the producer that are suitable for communication in
their own social network.
Overall, it must be the aim of the communication policy to continuously find
new occasions to communicate with the target audience and to present the range of
available services or at least some of its aspects. This is specifically relevant in the
case of complex prosumer goods. And the greater the variety of perspectives used to
enable communication with different subsegments of the target audience, the more
sustainable will be the establishment of a comprehensive and holistic brand
communication.
6 Relevance of Renewable Energy as an Input Factor

in Marketing Other Goods and Services
In section four, the aims of consumers who order renewable energy products were
discussed. These aims are of direct relevance for providers of renewable energy
products, but at the same time, these products can be used by many different
companies along the value chain, including, for example, the producers of con-
sumer or investment goods. There are many reasons why these producers might
decide to use renewable energy. Perhaps they are reacting to consumer preferences
in favor of sustainably produced products and services and are using their decision
to support renewable energy in the context of a marketing campaign focusing on
consumers’ sustainability targets. The most prominent example in this connection
is the recently introduced Bahncard of Deutsche Bahn (German Railway), which
allows rail travel at a discounted rate. The Bahncard is now issued in green, and
Deutsche Bahn purchases large quantities of electricity from renewable sources to
achieve CO2 neutrality for distances traveled by owners of the card. Tour operators
also use renewable energy in their marketing (Gervers 2017), and renewable energy
is also used in the marketing of food. For example, the packaging of Milka
chocolate includes the information that only renewable energy was used in its
production. Such an approach is particularly promising in the marketing of products
where sustainability generally plays a large role in their positioning, for example,
bio food. What does this mean for the marketing of renewable energy? There is a
need to support customers in the effort to communicate the advantages of using
renewable energy to end users. This is exactly what many providers are already
doing by offering communication manuals, word building blocks, or printable

versions of eco-labels, which in turn can be used by their customers in their own
marketing.
Consumer demand for sustainably produced products and services can also
affect other participants in the value chain. Producers of consumer goods occasion-
ally reformulate the preferences of the end customer as sustainability requirements
for their suppliers, including the manufacturers of investment goods. These
sustainability requirements can also include the use of renewable energy. In this
way, the preferences of consumers can occasionally have an effect on several stages
along the value chain.
In addition to the desire to address the concerns of consumers who demand the
use of renewable energy, producers can also pursue further goals at all stages of the
value chain when using renewable energy in the production process. First, there are
financial goals. Until the Renewable Energy Act of 2014, generating electricity
from biomethane was a way for manufacturing enterprises to achieve a reduction
and long-term stabilization of heating costs. Second, the use of renewable energy
can also originate from a comprehensive sustainability strategy, without any pres-
sure by consumers or institutional clients.
However, such a use of renewable energy must always be apparent in the overall
“brand substance” (Meffert et al. 2010, p. 30). It consists of three components
(Meffert et al. 2010, pp. 30–31), always with regard to renewable energy:
• For the use of renewable energy, sustainability in aims and strategy means that
credibility can only be achieved if it is consistent with the corporate strategy and
positioning;
• Sustainability in the value chain with regard to renewable energy requires the
development of processes and key figures that allow for the implementation
and—if needed—communication of the promise “produced with renewable
energy”;
• Sustainability in service offerings means that the use of renewable energy as an
input factor is meaningful only if it strengthens product differentiation or is
appreciated by relevant stakeholders (e.g., consumers, media). The relevant
metric to assess the decision is still sustainable profitability.
In summary, renewable energy can be used at different stages of the value chain,
where it can also become a component of the branding strategy in line with the
brand substance. Thus the distributors of renewable energy must not only address
their direct customers in their marketing activities but also provide support in
addressing the preferences of their final customers through the use of renewable
energy (Fig. 5).
Marketer of Consumer
renewable Demand for renewable energy
• Preferences
energy products
• Willingness to
products pay
LEGAL FRAMEWORK CONDITIONS

• Green
electricity Demand for
• Green heating sustainably produced
energy consumer goods
• Bio fuels
• Biomethane Demand for renewable energy products
Producers of Producers of
investment consumption
Demand for
sustainably produced
investment goods
Demand for renewable
goods goods
• Green • Green
energy products
marketing marketing
• Financial goals • Financial
• Other goals goals
• Other goals
Fig. 5 Demand effects for renewable energy products in the value chain
7 Summary: Most Important Steps for the Successful

Marketing of Renewable Energy
The environment for marketing renewable energy is characterized by a value orienta-

tion and the interactive web. This framework reflects our times and the societal realities
and is comprehensively suitable for the marketing of renewable energy. Within this
framework, the goals for the consumption of renewable energy need to be considered.
They are not limited to a cost/benefit analysis but in addition target actual change and
pursue individual psychological aims. All attributes of renewable energy need to be
considered as well since they frequently determine the scope of the distributor. The
marketing of renewable energy takes place within this framework (Fig. 6).
In this process, the main steps of the marketing of renewable energy need to be
stressed:
1. Of overarching relevance in product policy is transparency about energy gener-

ation. Here a distinction is made between sustainable products and products that
are labelled as “greenwashing.”6 Ideally, the product provides an ecological
value added, especially if it wants to satisfy consumers’ motivation for actual
change.
6
The attributes of low-involvement and credence goods in fact imply that even products where
greenwashing must be assumed can be successful in the marketplace, at least in the short run.
Fig. 6 Factors influencing the marketing mix
2. This involves the potential for achieving additional revenue.

3. In addition to the largest distribution channel, the Internet, which, due to its high
price transparency, limits the potential for additional revenue, direct selling and
referral by existing customers are decisive for successful marketing.
4. The ultimate aim of any communication policy is to transport the brand posi-
tioning. This is not an easy task owing to the tension between low-involvement
and credence goods on the one hand and the need to provide explanations along
two dimensions on the other hand.
In summary, the marketing of renewable energy must be based on a number of

clearly identifiable success factors and areas of activity that are derived from the
attributes of renewable energy. In an environment of value orientation and interactive
web, these success factors can be used in a targeted fashion. The renewable energy
product is defined above all by its transparent origin, which therefore serves as the
starting point for all marketing activities. However, these marketing efforts do not
take place in a vacuum but are heavily influenced by legislators and regulators.
References
AMA. (2013). Definition of marketing; approved July 2013. Accessed December 12, 2014, from
https://www.ama.org/AboutAMA/Pages/Definition-of-Marketing.aspx.
Busch, H., Esch, F.-R., & Kn€orle, C. (2009). Integrierte Markenwertplanung der EnBW. In F.-R.
Esch & W. Armbrecht (Eds.), Best practice der Markenf€ uhrung (pp. 355–369). Wiesbaden:
Gabler.
Dulleck, U., Kerschbamer, R., & Sutter, M. (2011). The economics of credence goods: An
experiment on the role of liability, verifiability, reputation, and competition. American Eco-
nomic Review, 101(2), 526–555.
Enge, M., Geigenmüller, A., & Leischnig, A. (2011). Commodity Marketing Eine Einführung. In
M. Enke & A. Geigenmüller (Eds.), Commodity marketing (2nd ed., pp. 4–29). Wiesbaden:
Gabler.
Friege, C. (2010). Kundenmanagement und Nachhaltigkeit—erfolgreiche Positionierung im
Internetzeitalter. Marketing Review St. Gallen, 27(4), 42–46.
Friege, C. (2016). Der Direktvertrieb in Mehrkanalstrategien. Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Friege, C., & Herbes, C. (2015). Konzeptionelle Überlegungen zur Vermarktung von
Erneuerbaren Energien. In C. Herbes & C. Friege (Eds.), Marketing Erneuerbarer Energien
(pp. 3–28). Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.
Friege, C., & Voss, H. (2015). Motive von Privatinvestoren bei Investitionen in EE-Projekte. In
C. Herbes & C. Friege (Eds.), Handbuch Finanzierung von Erneuerbare-Energien-Projekten
(pp. 89–105). München: UVK Lucius.
Friege, C. (2017). Direct Selling of renewable energy products. In C. Herbes & C. Friege (Eds.),
Marketing renewable energy. Heidelberg: Springer.
Geißler, H. (2014). Verbraucher strafen Unternehmen für Strompreise nicht noch weiter
ab. WirtschaftsWoche Online. Accessed December 14, 2014, from http://www.wiwo.de/
unternehmen/energie/brandindex-verbraucher-strafen-unternehmen-fuer-strompreise-nicht-
noch-weiter-ab/9528742.html.
Gervers, S. (2017). Renewable energy in the marketing of tourism companies. In C. Herbes &
C. Friege (Eds.), Marketing renewable energy. Heidelberg: Springer.
Hartmann, P., & Apaolaza-Ibá~nez, V. (2012). Consumer attitude and purchase intention toward
green energy brands: The roles of psychological benefits and environmental concern. Journal
of Business Research, 65, 1254–1263.
Herbes, C., Braun, L., & Rube, D. (2016). Pricing of biomethane products targeted at private
households in Germany—product attributes and providers’ pricing strategies. Energies, 9(4),
252.
Herbes, C., Jirka, E., Braun, J.-P., & Pukall, K. (2014). Der gesellschaftliche Diskurs um den
„Maisdeckel“vor und nach der Novelle des Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetzes (EEG) 2012.
GAIA, 23(2), 100–108.
Herbes, C., & Ramme, I. (2014). Online marketing of green electricity in Germany—A content
analysis of providers’ websites. Energy Policy, 66, 257–266.
Herbes, C., Friege, C., Baldo, D., & Mueller, K.-M. (2015). Willingness to pay lip service?
Applying a neuroscience-based method to WTP for green electricity. Energy Policy, 87,
562–572.
Kaenzig, J., Heizle, S. L., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2013). Whatever the customer wants, the customer
gets? Exploring the gap between consumer preferences and default electricity products in
Germany. Energy Policy, 53, 311–322.
Kearney, A. T. (2012). Der Strom- und Gasvertrieb im Wandel. Accessed December 14, 2014, from
http://www.atkearney.de/documents/856314/1214638/BIP_Der_Strom_und_Gasvertrieb_im_
Wandel.pdf/ee091e7c-9406-4b23-b5b3-608f936cbecc.
Kl€opfer, R., & Kliemczak, U. (2017). Renewable energies in the contracting market. In C. Herbes
& C. Friege (Eds.), Marketing renewable energy. Heidelberg: Springer.
Kotler, P., Kartaja, H., & Setiawan, I. (2010). Marketing 3.0. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Leprich, U., Hoffmann, P., & Luxenburger, M. (2017). Certificates in the market for renewable
energy in Germany. In C. Herbes & C. Friege (Eds.), Marketing renewable energy. Heidelberg:
Springer.
LichtBlick. (2014). Vertrauen schaffen—mit ausgezeichneten Produkten und ausgezeichnetem

Kundenservice. Accessed December 14, 2014, from http://www.lichtblick.de/privatkunden/strom/.
Litvine, D., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2011). Helping “light green” consumers walk the talk: Results of
a behavioral intervention survey in the Swiss electricity market. Ecological Economics, 70(3),
462–474.
Lohse, L., & Künzel, M. (2011). Customer relationship management im Energiemarkt. In M. Enke
& A. Geigenmüller (Eds.), Commodity marketing (2nd ed., pp. 382–400). Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Losse, B. (2014). Hohe Zustimmung für Energiewende; WirtschaftsWoche Online. Accessed
December 14, 2014, from http://www.wiwo.de/politik/deutschland/allensbach-umfrage-hohe-
zustimmung-fuer-energiewende/10037578.html.
MacPherson, R., & Lange, I. (2013). Determinants of green electricity tariff uptake in the
UK. Energy Policy, 62, 920–933.
Manta, M. (2012). Bedeutung von G€ utesiegeln. München: FGM.
Meffert, H., Burmann, C., & Kirchgeorg, M. (2015). Marketing (12th ed.). Wiesbaden: Springer
Gabler.
Meffert, H., Rauch, C., & Lepp, H. L. (2010). Sustainable branding—mehr als ein neues
Schlagwort?! Marketing Review St. Gallen, 27(5), 28–35.
Menges, R., & Beyer, G. (2017). Consumer preferences for renewable energy. In C. Herbes &
C. Friege (Eds.), Marketing renewable energy. Heidelberg: Springer.
M€oller, S., & Roltsch, S. (2011). Differenzierung von Commodities am Beispiel von
Hochleistungskraftstoffen. In M. Enke & A. Geigenmüller (Eds.), Commodity marketing
(2nd ed., pp. 458–477). Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Ringel, M. (2017). Driving renewables: Business models for the integration of renewable energy
and e-mobility in Europe. In C. Herbes & C. Friege (Eds.), Marketing renewable energy.
Heidelberg: Springer.
Rowlands, I. H., Parker, P., & Scott, D. (2002). Consumer perceptions of “green power”. Journal
of Consumer Marketing, 19(2), 112–129.
Schlemmermeier, B., & Drechsler, B. (2017). From energy supplier to capacity manager—New
business models in green and decentralized energy markets. In C. Herbes & C. Friege (Eds.),
Marketing renewable energy. Heidelberg: Springer.
Stigka, E. K., Paravantis, J. A., & Mihalakakou, G. K. (2014). Social acceptance of renewable
energy sources: A review of contingent valuation applications. Renewable & Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 32, 100–106.
Taylor Wessing, L. L. P. (2012). Private capital and clean energy. London: Taylor Wessing.
€
Tchibo. (2014). Okostrom & gas. Accessed December 14, 2014, from http://www.tchibo.de/
oekostrom-gas-nachhaltige-energie-zum-tchibo-tarif-c400001066.html#.
TNS Infratest. (2008). Markenwahl mit Herz und Verstand. Accessed December 21, 2014, from
http://www.tns-infratest.com/presse/ftd-archiv/2008-01-21_ursachenforschung-2.asp.
Top agrar online. (2012). Teurer Ökostrom ist ein Irrglaube. Accessed April 12, 2013, from http://
www.topagrar.com/news/Energie-Energienews-Oekostrom-nichtteurer-als-herkoemmliche-
Tarife-909404.html.
TÜV Süd. (2014). Wegbereiter der Energiewende. Accessed December 14, 2014, from http://www.
tuev-sued.de/anlagen-bau-industrietechnik/technikfelder/umwelttechnik/energie-zertifizierung/
wegbereiter-der-energiewende.
UBA. (2014). Marktanalyse Ökostrom—Endbericht. Accessed December 14, 2014, from http://
www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/376/publikationen/texte_04_2014_mark
tanalyse_oekostrom_0.pdf.
Utopia. (2014). Über Utopia. Accessed December 21, 2014, from http://www.utopia.de/utopia.
Wiedmann, K.-P., & Ludewig, D. (2011). Commodity branding. In M. Enke & A. Geigenmüller
(Eds.), Commodity marketing (2nd ed., pp. 82–114). Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research,
12(3), 341–352.
Christian Friege holds a doctorate in business administra-

tion from Catholic University Eichstaett. He was CEO of
Lichtblick AG, Germany’s leading green energy provider
until 2012 and consulted in the field thereafter. Before
joining Lichtblick he was Chief Customer Officer on the
board of debitel AG and Chief Executive of BCA
(a Bertelsmann subsidiary) in the UK. Currently, he is
Chief Sales Officer on the board of CEWE Stiftung & Co
KGaA. Throughout his managerial career he has always
maintained a strong research interest in the field of market-
ing and sales. His academic publications have appeared in
Journal of Service Research, Marketing Review St. Gallen
and Energy Policy. Most recently he co-edited books in
German on Marketing Renewable Energy and Financing
Green Energy Projects together with Prof. Dr. Carsten
Herbes.
Carsten Herbes is a professor of International Manage-

ment and Renewable Energy at Nuertingen-Geislingen Uni-
versity (NGU) and Director of the ‚Institute for International
Research on Sustainable Management and Renewable
Energy‘. Before joining NGU he worked for ten years with
a leading management consulting firm in Europe and Asia.
Subsequently he joined a bioenergy company where he
finally became CFO. He obtained a Master’s degree in
business administration from Mannheim University and a
Ph.D. from the University of Frankfurt (Oder). His research
topics include marketing, acceptance and cost of renewable
energy. He acts as advisor on sustainability issues to various
companies and associations and is a frequent speaker at
national and international conferences.
Global Markets and Trends for Renewables
Karina Bloche-Daub, Janet Witt, Volker Lenz, and Michael Nelles
Abstract
Since the first oil crisis in the 1970s, technologies to use renewable energy
(RE) have been developed and improved significantly, and the importance of
these resources in the production of electricity, heat, and fuels has increased
continuously. For each renewable energy source a unique set of technologies has
developed bringing with it different forms of application. Although wind energy
and solar energy have developed strongly in the past few years (especially in
China, Germany, the USA, Brazil, India, and Japan), they still account for less
than 1 % of primary energy consumption worldwide. So far, traditional biomass
application and hydropower are the most commonly used REs, and they will
retain their frontrunner position in the near future. Against this backdrop the
following chapter aims to give an overview of the current usage of RE—
worldwide, in the EU, North America, Asia, and the rest of the world. Further-
more, an outlook on the potential development of the different RE technologies
up to 2020 is given.
K. Bloche-Daub (*) • V. Lenz
Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum gGmbH, Torgauerstr. 116, 04347 Leipzig, Germany
e-mail: karina.bloche-daub@dbfz.de
J. Witt
Faculty of Landscape Architecture, Horticulture and Forestry, University of Applied Science
Erfurt, Altonaer Straße 25, 99085 Erfurt, Germany
M. Nelles
Waste Management and Material Flow of the Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences
of the University of Rostock, Justus-v.-Liebig-Weg 6, 18059 Rostock, Germany

28 K. Bloche-Daub et al.
Keywords
Renewable energy use • Renewable energy markets • Support schemes •
Renewable energy production • Renewable electricity • Heat and fuels
1 Support Schemes for Renewable Energies
The development of renewable energy (RE) markets is determined by national legal

frameworks and especially by incentives for the development of RE technologies.
According to regional availability and the purchasing power of the costumer,
transregional and transcontinental trade is a result. Previously, this was limited to
transportable solid and liquid biofuels, for example, wood chips, pellets, and
biodiesel. However, public criticism—addressing especially direct and indirect
land-use changes in Asia and South America (the so-called food versus fuel
debate)—has shown that proof of origin and the sustainability of the traded
products/resources are a necessity.
To achieve national RE targets, different national support mechanisms are used,
and they can vary substantially from country to country. In what follows, an insight
into commonly used political and economic incentives is given.
1.1 Support Schemes for Renewable Electricity
A list of typical models used to support renewable electricity is presented here

(Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century 2016):
• FIT (Feed-in tariff or feed-in premium): This type of policy guarantees

producers of REs specified payments per unit, for example, in US dollars per
kilowatt hour (USD/kWh). The same policy may also regulate how producers
can pool and sell power to the (public) grid. A variety of alternatives exist for
defining the level of incentives. The two main options are the payment of a
guaranteed minimum price (e.g., FIT) and payment floats on top of the wholesale
electricity price (e.g., feed-in premium). A special form of the FIT is net
metering. Under this policy, utility consumers with on-site electricity generators
can receive credits for excess generation that can be applied to offset consump-
tion in other billing periods.
• Renewable portfolio standard (RPS): This can be a governmental scheme
requiring a utility company, group of companies, or consumers to provide or
use a given minimum share of RE. This is also called renewable obligations or
mandated market shares and is applied, for example, in Great Britain.
• Tendering: This is also called auction, reverse auction, or tender. The RE supply
or capacity is auctioned by the seller and typically sells at the lowest price
acceptable to them. The bidding may be assessed by price and nonprice factors.
At the moment this approach is used especially in Central and South America,
Global Markets and Trends for Renewables 29
but it is slated to be introduced in more countries, for example, in Germany

in 2017.
• Trade with certificates: A limited number of certificates for the emission of
greenhouse gases (GHGs) are issued. Ultimately the certificates should help
trigger further GHG reductions, for example, by increasing the efficiency of
existing plants or the installation of new RE plants to compensate fossil energy
resources. Certificates will help this development by a growth in value and, if
needed, a reduced availability of certificates on the market. This mechanism has
been used, for example, in the European Union (EU) since 2003 as the EU
Emissions Trading System (ETS) and is the first transnational trading system; so
far, however, it has had limited success (European Commission 2016)
• Labeling: Currently there is no global framework (label) in place for the market-
ing of electricity from RE sources like, for example, so-called eco-electricity.
Nevertheless, energy companies, energy platforms, and the electricity stock
exchange, especially in Europe, offer a limited amount of eco-electricity for
trading.
1.2 Support Schemes for Renewable Heat
Currently 45 countries have renewable heating and cooling targets; 31 of these

countries are located on the European continent (Renewable Energy Policy Net-
work for the 21st Century 2016). However, the promotion and support schemes for
renewable heating and cooling technologies lag behind the implementation of
policies in the renewable electricity and fuel in transport (Renewable Energy Policy
Network for the 21st Century 2016). Measures that are often used to incentivize the
generation of renewable heating/cooling include reduced taxes for renewable fuels
(e.g., for wood pellets in Germany and Italy), national or regional subsidies for
investment costs, and low-interest loans for the installation or redevelopment of
regenerative heating/cooling systems. These approaches are prioritized in
industrialized countries, while developing and emerging countries implement com-
parable approaches only partially. Generally, subsidies for the installation or
reconstruction of renewable heating/cooling systems are temporary, and the mag-
nitude of incentivizing is affected by economic fluctuations.
1.3 Support Schemes for Renewable Fuels
In the last few years many regulatory measures and fiscal incentives have been
imposed on renewable fuels and electric vehicles. The vast majority of these
policies targeted the production and use of biodiesel and ethanol. Typically
approaches included installing targets, regulatory measures, and tax/financial
incentives (Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century 2016).
Quota models are often used in the biofuels market. Quotas are set in reference to
a pure biofuel (100 %) or a mixed biofuel (amount of biofuels mixed with fossil
fuels). In Germany, the amendment of the law on biofuel quotas (BioKraftQuG) in

2015 changed from a quota defining an amount of biofuel on the market to a
decarbonization quota. To evaluate the impact of the target quota, the GHG
reduction must be calculated. Most policies, however, focus on road transport and
do not include aviation, rail, or shipping. For example, no national support
programs for the use of renewable fuels in the aviation sector currently exist.
Nevertheless, some organizations try to introduce a target quota for the use of
alternative fuels in the aviation sector, for example, the Aviation Initiative for
Renewable Energy e.V. (Aireg), which wants to implement a quota of 10 % biofuels
by 2025 (Aireg e.V. n.d.).
1.4 Policy Measures and Targets Worldwide
In Table 1 the relevant policies, fiscal incentives, and public financing are listed for
three major regions of the world; they are also used subsequently in Sects. 2 and 3:
• Asia: The three leading countries in the RE sector are China, India, and Japan,
while countries like South Korea and Indonesia may only play a marginal role at
the moment.
• EU: The EU currently consists of 28 member states. In the statistics presented
here, all EU countries are taken into consideration.
• North America: For the statistics analyzed here the North American continent is
assumed to be the USA, Canada, and Mexico.
• Rest of the world: Important regions summarized under this category are Africa,
Middle East, Central and South America (with Brazil and Argentina)
2 Primary Energy Consumption from Nonrenewable

Sources
Nonrenewable primary energy sources are fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, oil,
and peat and mineral fuels (mainly natural uranium). Fossil fuels are based on
organic decomposition products such as decomposed plants and animals. These
substances have stored high amounts of solar energy from prehistoric times as part
of the carbon lifecycle. The stored energy can be transferred into heat, electricity,
and fuels applying thermochemical processes. Mineral sources refer to radioactive
material that is used in nuclear power plants to produce thermal energy by neutron-
induced nuclear fission.
2.1 Status Quo
Global 551 EJ of primary energy was consumed worldwide in 2015 (Fig. 1). Fossil
as well as nuclear fuels are still the dominant sources for energy production. These
Table 1 Number of countries with regulatory policies, renewable energy targets, and fiscal incentives/public financing [data from Renewable Energy Policy
Network for the Twenty-First Century (2016)]
Regulatory policies Fiscal incentives and public financing
Reduction
in sales,
Feed-in Electric Net Capital Investment energy Public
Renewable tariff/ utility metering/ Transport Heat subsidy/ or VAT, or Energy investment,
Global Markets and Trends for Renewables
energy premium quota net obligation/ obligation/ Tradable grant or production other production loans, or
target payment obligation billing mandate mandate REC Tendering rebate tax credits taxes payment grants
Asia 32 21 9 11 11 5 7 17 14 10 21 8 21
EU 28 24 7 10 25 7 15 13 20 13 19 5 19
North 3 2 2 3 2 1 1 2 2 3 2 3
America
Rest of 71 34 11 29 28 8 5 32 23 17 58 11 40
the
world
World 134 81 29 53 66 21 28 64 59 43 100 24 83
31
Fig. 1 Primary energy consumption of selected regions [(asterisk) data estimated; illustration
based on BP PLC (2016)]
nonrenewable sources provide 498 EJ of energy, which equals approximately 87 %

of the total world primary energy demand. Oil has the highest market share, with a
global consumption of 181 EJ (33 %). Coal (hard and soft) contributes 30 % to
satisfy global energy demand. Furthermore, 131 EJ (24 %) are provided by natural
gas and 24 EJ (4 %) by nuclear resources. Contrary to the relative constant global
distribution of fossil energy sources, significant differences are observable on
regional level. This is related to regional resource availability and differences in
regional economies affecting primary energy demand. For example, US primary
energy consumption declined between 2014 and 2015 by 0.9 %, while consumption
increased in Germany (2.8 %) and China (1.5 %) (BP PLC 2016).
EU European primary energy consumption was approximately 69 EJ in 2015.

With a share of 36 %, oil is the dominant fossil energy source, followed by natural
gas with 22 %, coal (16 %), and nuclear (12 %). The latter is especially used in
France, Germany, and the UK (BP PLC 2016).
Asia Coal is the most important energy source in Asia, where 115 EJ was con-
sumed in 2015, more than half of the total Asian primary energy consumption in
that year. Oil and natural gas are respectively the second and third most frequently
used fossil energy sources. Oil contributes with 27 % and natural gas with 11 % to
satisfy Asia’s primary energy demand. At the moment nuclear energy is not as
important in Asia as it is in Europe or the USA, but its use has increased in recent
years. In East and South Asia, 40 new nuclear power plants are currently under
construction and another 90 are planned. The highest growth in the use of this
technology is expected in China, South Korea, and India. China is the world’s
largest consumer of primary energy from nuclear sources (126 EJ) (BP PLC 2016;
World Nuclear Association 2016).
North America Currently 117 EJ of primary energy is consumed in North America.

The USA has the most dominant energy market on the North American continent.
With a primary energy demand of 96 EJ in 2015, the country accounts for 65 % of
North American and 17 % of the world’s primary energy consumption (Fig. 1). The
two most important fossil fuels are oil and natural gas, accounting for 37 and 31 %
of primary energy consumption. Coal and nuclear-based energy are less important
for the US energy market, with 17 and 8 % of primary energy consumption,
respectively (BP PLC 2016).
Rest of the world In 2015,140 EJ of primary energy was consumed in the rest of the
world. This accounts for 30 % of the world’s primary energy consumption. In
regional terms, the Middle East used the most primary energy sources (37 EJ)
and accounts for 7 % of the world’s primary energy consumption. South and Central
America used 29 EJ (5 %) of primary energy. Here Brazil, with annual consumption
of 12 EJ, is the biggest consumer. Primary energy consumption in Russia is at
nearly the same level as South American energy consumption (28 EJ). With a share
of 38 % natural gas is the most important fossil energy source in this part of the
world, followed by oil with 37 %. Coal accounts for 11 % of primary energy
consumption and nuclear energy sources for only 3 % (BP PLC 2016). Africa’s
current energy needs are met through a mix of biomass and fossil fuels, with
biomass accounting for approximately half of Africa’s total primary energy supply.
Coal and natural gas account for about 14 % each and oil approximately 22 %.
Hydropower represents about 1 % of the total primary energy supply in Africa
(IRENA 2015).
2.2 Trend 2020
Global The global consumption of fossil and nuclear resources will increase
significantly in the next 5 years. As a consequence, the nonrenewable primary
energy sources will still dominate the markets in the near future. Highly populated
emerging nations (especially China, India, and Brazil) will increase their industrial
sector, resulting in increased energy demand. Furthermore, the living standards
especially in—but not limited to—these countries will be a driver for growing
energy consumption. These trends, however, will also be linked to economic
factors, national/international conflicts, famines, and epidemics and may in turn
impact resource availability as well as price fluctuations. In consideration of such
conditions, fossil energy consumption may increase to 600 or even as much as
610 EJ. It can be assumed that the share of the different fossil sources will not
change significantly as the overall distribution grows (BP PLC 2016).
EU Assuming a development of primary energy consumption similar to the past

10 years, the estimated primary energy demand will decrease to 65 EJ in 2020
(1 %/a). Despite the decrease in primary energy consumption, fossil as well as
nuclear energy sources will still dominate the fuel market. Oil will continue to be
the most frequently used fossil fuel, with a market share of 33 %. Natural gas will
cover 19 % of the European primary energy demand and coal 15 %. The demand for
nuclear energy is estimated to decrease by 2020, especially as a result of Germany’s
phasing out of nuclear energy. By 2020 this technology will decrease to 8 EJ/a
(11 % of European primary consumption). All told, the market share of nonrenew-
able energy sources is estimated to be approximately 78 % of the total primary
energy demand (BP PLC 2016).
Asia Owing to an economic boom and increasing living standards in many Asian
countries, primary energy consumption increased dramatically—averaging 4 % per
year—in the past 10 years. Assuming the same trend for the next 5 years, Asian
primary energy consumption could reach a level of 275 EJ in 2020. The increase
will be evenly distributed across the different fossil energy sources, with coal being
the most important primary energy source, with a contribution of more than 50 % to
satisfy Asian primary energy demand. Oil will be the second largest contributor,
with one quarter of the total Asian energy consumption. Furthermore, natural gas
will contribute a sizeable share, 12 %, while all other primary energy sources will
continue to play only a marginal role in the energy sector (BP PLC 2016).
North America Primary energy consumption in North America declined by 0.1 %

each year over the last 10 years. Assuming this trend will continue for the next
5 years, North American primary energy consumption will have declined by 1 –
116 EJ in 2020. The share of the different energy sources in the primary energy mix
will not change dramatically. Oil will remain the most frequently used primary
energy source (36 %), followed by natural gas (35 %). The increased consumption
of natural gas will be a result of the strong efforts of the US government to push
shale gas production. Following the average increase over the last 10 years, the use
of coal will decrease, while nuclear energy use will grow. In 2020 coal will account
for 13 % and nuclear for 8 % of primary energy production (BP PLC 2016).
Rest of the world Energy consumption in the rest of the world will continue to
grow to 2020. Assuming a growth trajectory similar to that of the past 10 years
(2 %/a), the primary energy consumption could increase to 147 EJ in 2020. Based
on the average increase over the past 10 years, the consumption of oil will rise
significantly. In 2020 it may account for up to 40 % of total primary energy
consumption in these regions of the world. Natural gas, with a share of 35 % and
coal with 12 %, will be the second and third most important energy sources. Owing
to restrictions in many countries, the use of nuclear energy sources will decline to
nearly 1 % (BP PLC 2016).
3 Utilization and Markets of Renewable Energies
Renewable energy can be harvested from various sources: solar irradiance (e.g.,
biomass and photovoltaic), energy stored in the Earth’s layers (e.g., geothermal),
climatic energy (e.g., wind), or planetary gravitation and motion (e.g., hydropower
and tidal). Different technologies for converting renewable resources into energy
are known and will be developed in the future. In what follows, their contribution to
satisfying global electricity, heating, and fuel demand is discussed, and a detailed
insight into important renewable energy markets is presented.
3.1 Renewable Electricity Production and Application
3.1.1 Status Quo

Water and wind were the first renewable energy resources used for generating
electricity. Through the invention of the first steam engine in the seventeenth
century, the use of biomass to produce electricity emerged as an additional option.
In the last century a variety of technologies to generate electricity from renewable
resources, such as wind (onshore or offshore), tidal energy, and wave and marine
current power, as well as energy from geothermal and solar sources, were
introduced. Table 2 gives an overview of actual global renewable electricity
production.
Global At the end of 2015 the global installed capacity of renewable electricity
was up to 1900 GW, and the potential electricity production was between 5960 and
6370 TWh. Water is still the most dominant RE source for electricity production,
with 3950 to 4200 TWh being produced currently in hydropower plants. Hence
hydropower has a share of 66 % in renewable electricity production. Wind
contributes with 16–17 % and biomass with 11 % of global renewable generated
electricity. Less important are solar and geothermal electricity production, with
shares between 5–6 and 1–2 %, respectively.
EU At the end of 2015 approximately 515 GW of renewable power capacity was

installed in the EU. These plants had a potential electricity generation of 1000 TWh
annually. Most electricity was produced from hydropower (354 TWh; share of
35 %) and wind (also a share of 35 %), while electricity generation based on
biomass (18 %) and solar (10 %) were less important. Electricity generated from
RE sources contributed more than one quarter (25.4 %) of the EU’s gross electricity
consumption. A very high proportion is provided in Austria (68.1 %) and Sweden
(61.8 %), where more than half of all the electricity consumed was generated from
RE sources, largely as a result of hydropower and biomass (Eurostat 2015).
Asia The renewable electricity market in Asia is dominated by hydropower, with a

share of 77 % (1 586 TWh). Wind is the second largest RE source with electricity
output of 240 TWh (12 %). All other RE sources contribute only marginally to
Table 2 Global renewable electricity production in 2015 and trend for 2020 [data partly
estimated and based on Bloche-Daub et al. (2015)]
Electricity production
Capacity (GW) (TWh/a)
Status quo Trend Status quo Trend
Energy source 2015 2020 2015 2020
Hydro 1035–1080 1100–1200 3950–4200 Approx.
5000
Hydro energy (without tidal 1035–1080 1100–1200 3950–4200 Approx.
and wave energy) 5000
Tidal and wave energy Approx. 0.6 Max. 1 0.8–1 Approx. 1
Wind 432 790 992–1004 1750–1800
Onshore 421 755 ca. 950 1620–1646
Offshore 11 35 42–54 130–154
Solar 232 540 305–400 710–925
Solar thermal energy 5 10 10–13 20–25
Photovoltaic 227 530 295–386 690–900
Geothermal 13 16 76 92
Biomass 139–143 160–165 646–681 795–975
Solid biofuels 106 117–120 464 585–720
Organic waste 16 18–20 77–97 85–110
Biogas 17–21 25 105–120 125–145
Sum, global 1851–1900 2606–2711 5969–6361 8347–8792
renewable electricity production. Solar has a share of 4 % (86 TWh) and the other
RE sources combined (e.g., geothermal, biomass) amount to 7 % (144 TWh/a)
(Fig. 2) (BP PLC 2016). The most important markets for renewable electricity
production in Asia are China, India, and Japan. With a renewable electricity
consumption of more than 1400 TWh China is Asia’s number one consumer of
renewable electricity and leads the world. In particular, in 2015 electricity produc-
tion from wind and solar surged in China to record levels (Coghlan 2016). Cur-
rently, China has 43.2 GW of solar capacity with a potential electricity generation
of more than 40 TWh (BP PLC 2016; Martin 2016). Hydropower is the most
important source of renewable electricity in China, with an annual generation of
1126 TWh and an installed capacity of 320 GW (International Hydropower Asso-
ciation 2016). Wind energy increased dramatically in China in the last year (74 %
increase in installed capacity compared to 2015) and a cumulative capacity of
almost 145 GW (Global Wind Energy Council 2016; National Bureau of Statistics
of China. n.d.). So far electricity generated from geothermal and bioenergy
applications plays a minor role in the Chinese RE system. In 2014 approximately
53 TWh of electrical energy were produced from these sources (BP PLC 2016). By
the end of 2015 a total capacity of 100 MW from geothermal power plants was
supposed to be installed in China (Nitkoski 2015). With 193 TWh annually India is
the second largest Asian market for renewable electricity production. The highest
Fig. 2 Electricity generated from different renewable resources in 2015 [illustration based on data
from BP PLC (2016)]
share, at 124 TWh annually, is contributed by hydropower, followed by wind with

41 TWh, while geothermal and biomass together contribute to 21 TWh (BP PLC
2016). Currently 27 GW of wind energy are installed in India, and the country plans
a further increase of wind energy capacity (Government of India 2016). Solar power
plants have the second largest installed capacity, with 6.8 GW, followed by biomass
power cogeneration plants (previously operated with bagasse from sugarcane
processing factories) with 4.8 GW and small hydropower plants with an installed
capacity of 4.3 GW. Furthermore, between 8 and 15 MW of biomass power
capacity are installed in India (Government of India 2016).
North America In 2015 North America produced a total of 1032 TWh of renewable
electricity. With 667 TWh annually, hydropower accounts for the largest part of
renewable electricity, followed by wind (225 TWh) and solar (193 TWh). With the
exception of hydropower production, the US market is the leading North American
market for renewable electricity production, at 571 TWh. Only in terms of electric-
ity production from hydropower is the USA surpassed, by Canada, which produced
383 TWh of hydroelectricity in 2015 compared to 254 TWh of hydroelectricity in
the USA (BP PLC 2016). Thanks to US state and federal government incentives for
RE production, the use of renewable energy sources (without hydropower) doubled
between 2000 and 2014, bringing the share of RE sources for electricity production
to 13 % in 2014 (EIA 2015). Most electricity is produced by hydropower (44 %) and
wind (34 %; 193 TWh). Solar energy contributes only 7 % to US renewable
electricity generation. Biomass, geothermal, and other renewable resources have
a share of 15 % (biomass being the main contributor). With an installed capacity of
around 3.6 GW, geothermal energy is of only marginal importance.
Rest of the world A total of 1410 TWh of renewable electricity was produced
worldwide in 2015. The highest amount was provided by hydropower, with an
annual production of 1231 TWh (87 %). All other renewable technologies play only
a marginal role in electricity production. Biomass and geothermal contribute 7 %,
wind 5 %, and solar only 1 % of the total renewable electricity production (BP PLC
2016). In the past few years, South American countries in particular have attracted
investors for RE projects, and this trend is expected to continue (Pothecary 2016).
So far, wind dominates in Brazil, while hydropower is the most often used RE
source for electricity production in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East
(BP PLC 2016; IRENA 2015).
3.1.2 Trend 2020

Following the trend of the past 10 years, in 2020 renewable electricity could amount
to 8347–8792 TWh (Table 2). With an estimated 5000 TWh of electricity genera-
tion by water, it can be assumed that hydropower will continue to be the most
important means of renewable electricity production, followed by wind, with an
estimated 1780–1805 TWh. Thus, wind may contribute nearly a quarter of renew-
able electricity generation in 2020. All other RE technologies will keep developing
but will not be as relevant in the energy sector in the coming 5 years as wind or
hydropower are on a global scale.
3.2 Renewable Heat Production and Application
3.2.1 Status Quo

Renewable heat generation is as old as humanity. Biomass use for heating purposes
started with the discovery of fire. Even today the traditional form of biomass use in
an open three-stone hearth for heating and cooking is employed in developing
countries (Butt et al. 2013). Although biogenic fuels are used in some regions of the
world in primitive and inefficient ways, the global trend is to use the Earth’s
renewable resources more efficiently and sustainably. Thus, the technologies to
generate heat from biomass have developed significantly in the past few years.
Besides biomass, solar thermal heat generation, often used in decentralized
systems, has a long tradition. Similarly, near-surface geothermal heat generation
has been used in some geologically rich regions in the form of heat pumps and other
geothermal technologies in the past few centuries. Table 2 presents an overview of
renewable heat production worldwide.
Global Heat production (usable heat) on a worldwide basis from RE technologies

was between 26 and 28 EJ in 2015 (Table 3). With a share of 93 %, this figure is
largely dominated by solid biofuels. Although all other options for renewable heat
generation (near-surface and deep geothermal heat production, solar thermal heat
production, and biogas) are of secondary importance, the development of these
renewable heat technologies has increased significantly in the past few years.
Table 3 Global renewable heat production in 2015 and trend for 2020 (data partly estimated)
Installed capacity (GW) Heat generation (PJ/a)
Status quo Trend Status quo
Energy source 2015 2020 2015 Trend 2020
Solar thermal 445 1000–1100 1250–1300 2200–2600
Geothermal 74.5 86 615 713
Near-surface (heat 53 61 345 399
pumps)
Deep 21.5 25 270 314
Biomass 340 367–377 24,390–25,715 26,870–28,270
Solid biofuels 315c 340–350c 23,980–25,165a 26,420–27,670
Biogas 25 27 410–550b 450–600
Sum, global 860 1453–1563 26,255–27,630 29,783–31,583
a
Including heat from combined heat and power plant (CHP) process of solid biomass and organic
municipal waste: 567–762 PJ (2015); 623–847 PJ (2020)
b
Including heat from CHP process biogas: 20–30 PJ (2015); 30–40 PJ (2020)
c
Only modern bioenergy heating plants; data based on Bloche-Daub et al. (2015)
Fig. 3 Global solar thermal and geothermal heat production and installed capacities [(asterisk)
data estimated; illustration based on data from Angelino et al. (2014), Epp (2016), Lund and Boyd
(2015), Observ’ER (2015), and Renewable Energy Policy Network for the twenty-first century
(2016)]
Owing to the implementation of targets and incentive programs in different

countries across the globe (e.g., China), the importance of solar thermal heating
systems will keep increasing in the coming years (Fig. 3).
EU In 2015, between 4200 and 4350 PJ of renewable heat was produced and
consumed in the EU. The highest amount, 95 %, was provided by solid bioenergy,
with 4000 to 4100 PJ in 2015. All other renewable heat technologies contributed
only marginal amounts of heat, for example, solar with 1.5 % or geothermal heat
with 3.5 %. On a global scale, some European countries, such as Iceland, Norway,
and Sweden, have some of the highest shares of renewable heat in their overall heat
production (>50 %). Europe is also the leader in technology development, such as
combined solar thermal systems, integration of solar thermal heating into district
heating networks, or the use of renewable heat for industrial processes. Further-
more, the development of small-scale renewable heating applications based on
geothermal energy or bioenergy are a main driver of the European renewable
heating market (Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century 2016).
Asia Asian countries are the global leaders in the consumption of modern renew-
able heat. This is especially due to bio-heat used in the industrial sector in India and
other Asian countries. Furthermore, China is the frontrunner in the direct use of
geothermal and biogas for heat purposes. On top of that, China is the most
important market for solar-based water-heating systems, with 70 % of the world-
wide installed capacity in China (Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st
Century 2016).
North America Owing to a decrease in biomass consumption in the industrial

sector, renewable heat has been declining in North America since 2007. The most
important market for renewable electricity and for renewable heat technologies is
currently the USA. This is where the largest number of installed solar thermal water
collectors can be found, which makes them the frontrunner in this technology not
only in Northern America but globally, with an installed capacity of 4.5 % (Renew-
able Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century 2016).
Rest of the world The currently used renewable heat technologies differ strongly in
the remaining countries of the world. The South American countries and Africa use
mainly bio-heat, while the Middle East has increased the use of solar thermal water
heaters in the past few years significantly. In particular, the use of traditional
biofuels, such as forestry, agricultural residues, and animal excrement, continues
to be the favored heating fuel for the lower class in, for example, Africa and South
America. Though this traditional form of renewable heating production is rather
inefficient, it still accounts for a significant share of renewable heating (Renewable
Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century 2016) Besides biomass for heating
purposes, the use of solar thermal heating systems has also increased in the last few
years in Brazil, for example, which had an installed surface of 1.8 Mil m2 in 2015
(Dawson 2015).
Table 4 Renewable fuel Energy content (PJ/a)

production global 2015 and
Energy source Status quo 2015 Trend 2020a
trend 2020
Bioethanol 2218 2100–2300
Biodiesel 1050 1170
Sum, global 3268 3270–3470
a
Date estimated, data based on Bloche-Daub et al. (2015)
3.2.2 Trend 2020

By 2020 the consumption of renewable heat could reach 28–31 EJ given the current
trend (Table 3). Solid biofuels, such as woodchips and pellets, and traditional
biofuels (e.g., forestry and agricultural residues and animal excrements) will remain
the most important renewable sources for heat generation. These fuels could
provide up to 87 % of total renewable heat. Solar thermal heat production
(ca. 8 %) and geothermal energy (ca. 3 %) will continue to be of marginal signifi-
cance to the energy sector.
3.3 Renewable Fuel Production and Application
3.3.1 Status Quo

Renewable fuel production is the most recent of the renewable energy technologies
after heat and electricity. So far, only biogenic resources are being used for
renewable fuel production and are mainly applied in the transport sector. As with
fossil fuels, biofuels are used predominantly in liquid and gaseous form. Owing to
the technical and economic challenges of alternative concepts, only individual
projects exist for nonbiogenic renewable fuel production or application, such as
solar-powered airplanes or hydrogen-storage technologies. Table 4 summarizes the
current status of the two main biofuel production pathways and provides an outlook
for use in 2020.
Global Worldwide, in 2015, approximately 97 billion L of bioethanol (2218 PJ)

and around 32 billion L of biodiesel (1050 PJ) were produced (Table 4); this
amounts to a biofuel production of 3268 PJ in that year (Fig. 4).
EU In Europe approximately 460 PJ was provided as biofuels in 2015. With a

share of 78 % biodiesel makes up the largest part of it and is mainly produced in
Germany and France. Rapeseed is the main energy crop used for biodiesel produc-
tion in Europe. Because EU policy allows for the double counting of cooking oil
and tallow so that targets may be met in the transportation sector, the use of these
residues for biodiesel production will increase in the future.
Asia In the last few years, biofuel production has increased rapidly in Asia. Most
biofuels are produced in China, Indonesia, and Thailand. Palm oil is used as crop
Fig. 4 Biofuel production in selected countries/regions [(asterisk) data estimated, data based on
Dawson (2015), OECD/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2015)]
for biofuel production mainly in Indonesia, whereas China often cultivates sweet
sorghum, cassava, and other nongrain crops. Currently, however, the Asian biofuel
market is in a crisis. Restriction on biofuel imports to the EU, debates about direct
and indirect land-use change, and problems with feedstock supply are among the
main reasons for the crisis. The current shortage of feedstock supply in China, for
example, has the biodiesel industry operating at 20–25 % of its capacity (Renew-
able Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century 2016).
North America The USA is the leader in bioethanol production in North America;
its production is mainly based on corn. In addition to bioethanol, the USA produces
large amounts of biodiesel. Other than in Europe, where biodiesel is produced from
rapeseed, US biodiesel is generated from soybeans.
Rest of the world The South American countries Brazil and Argentina in particular
are main producers of biofuel products. Here sugar crops are often used as feed-
stock for bioethanol production. All other countries play only a marginal role in
global biofuel production, mainly owing to high production costs and a lack of land
and water available for energy crop production.
3.3.2 Trend 2020

If no changes are made to the legal framework and policy support for biofuels by
2020, the produced capacity of bioethanol and biodiesel will stabilize at current
levels. Hence, total biofuel production will reach 3.3–3.5 EJ/annually by 2020, with
the share of biodiesel and bioethanol approximately on the same level as in 2015.
3.4 Relevance of Renewable Energy Sector
3.4.1 Status Quo

From the current total primary energy consumption of 551 EJ approximately 13 %
is covered by RE resources (Fig. 5). As a result of the high amount of biomass used
in large parts of the world for heat production by traditional means, solid biomass is
the most important RE source. Biomass meet 6 % of total primary energy
Fig. 5 Contribution of different resources to global primary energy consumption, Status Quo
2015
Fig. 6 Contribution of different resources to global primary energy consumption, Trend 2020
consumption, while hydropower contributes 3 %. All other RE sources will be of

only marginal significance to the global energy sector.
3.4.2 Trend 2020

Linked to the estimated increase in fossil-based energy demand, RE consumption
will increase too. By 2020 regenerative energy sources could meet 14 % of the total
world energy demand (Fig. 6). No significant changes will take place in the market
share of the different RE sources compared to current levels. Thus, traditional and
modern biomass, especially solid biofuels, will cover the highest demand, with 8 %.
The contribution of hydropower to primary energy supplies will remain constant at
the current 3 % level. All other renewable options, for example, wind and solar
(respectively 4.6 and 3.6 EJ, or 1 % of world primary energy consumption) will not
be of importance to the global energy sector.
References
Aireg, e. V. (n.d.). Aireg (Aviation Initiative for Renewable Energy in Germany e.V.). http://www.
aireg.de
Angelino, L., Dumas, P., & Latham, A. (2014). The geothermal market in Europe—EGEC market
report 2013/2014. Brussels: European Geothermal Energy Council (EGEC).
Bloche-Daub, K., Witt, J., Janczik, S., & Kaltschmitt, M. (2015). Erneuerbare Energien—Globaler
Stand 2014. BWK, 67, 6–7.
BP p.l.c. (2016). BP statistical review of world energy.
Butt, S., Hartmann, I., & Lenz, V. (2013). Bioenergy potential and consumption in Pakistan.
Biomass and Bioenergy, 58, 1–408. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.08.009.
Coghlan, A. (2016, March 1). China set to surpass its climate targets as renewables soar. New
Scientist. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2079179-china-set-to-surpass-its-climate-
targets-as-renewables-soar/
Dawson, K. (2015, November). Latest trends in the world traditional & renewable heating market.
https://www.bsria.co.uk/. . ./market-dynamics-in-world-heating-pr.
EIA. (2015, March). Renewable energy explained. U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Accessed June 27, 2016, from http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page¼renewable_
home.
Epp, B. (2016, April 26). Big ups and downs on global market. Global Solar Therman Energy
Council. Accessed June 13, 2016, from http://www.solarthermalworld.org/content/big-ups-
and-downs-global-market.
European Commission. (2016, May 7). The EU Emission Trading System (EU ETS). European
Commission—Climate Action. Accessed July 7, 2016, from http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/
ets/index_en.htm.
Eurostat. (2015, May). Renewable energy statistics. Eurostat—Statistic explained. Accessed July
7, 2016, from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Renewable_energy_
statistics#Electricity.
Global Wind Energy Council. (2016, April). Global statistics. Global Wind Energy Council.
Accessed June 26, 2016, from http://www.gwec.net/global-figures/graphs/.
Government of India. (2016). Excecutive summary power sector. New Delhi: Ministry of Power,
Central Electricity Authority New Dehli.
International Hydropower Association. (2016). 2016 Hydropower Status Report. London: Interna-
tional Hydropower Association. http://www.hydropower.org/country-profiles/china.
IRENA. (2015). Africa 2030: Roadmap for a renewable energy future. Abu Dhabi: International
Renewable Energy Agency. Accessed July 7, 2016, from www.irena.org/publications.
Lund, J. W., & Boyd, T. L. (2015). Direct utilization of geothermal energy 2015 worldwide. In
Proceeding World Geothermal Congress. Presented at the World Geothermal Congress.
Martin, R. (2016, March). China is on an epic solar power binge. MIT Technology Review. https://
www.technologyreview.com/s/601093/china-is-on-an-epic-solar-power-binge/
National Bureau of Statistics of China. (n.d.). Statistical Communiqué of the People’s Republic of
China on the 2015 National Economic and Social Development. National Bureau of Statistics
of China. 29th February 2016. Accessed June 22, 2016, from http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/
PressRelease/201602/t20160229_1324019.html.
Nitkoski, M. (2015, July). China’s long-dormant geothermal energy sector may soon wake up. -
China Economic Review. http://www.chinaeconomicreview.com/chinas-long-dormant-geo
thermal-energy-sector-may-soon-wake.
Observ’ER. (2015). CSP und Solarthermie Barometer. Brüssel: EurObserv’ER.
OECD/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2015). OECD-FAO Agricul-
tural Outlook 2015. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Pothecary, S. (2016, May 16). Latin America becomes more attractive for renewable energy
investment, as Europe suffers the reverse trend. PV Magazine. Accessed July 7, 2016, from
http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/latin-america-becomes-more-attractive-for-
renewable-energy-investment--as-europe-suffers-the-reverse-trend_100024503/.
Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st century. (2016). REN 21—Renewables 2015
Global Status Report. Paris: Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century. Accessed
April 14, 2016.
World Nuclear Association. (2016, January). Asia’s Nuclear Growth. World Nuclear Association.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/others/asias-nuclear-energy-
growth.aspx.
Karina Bloche-Daub studied Engineering with a focus on

public utilities (Baden-Wuerttemberg Cooperative State
University Mannheim) and obtained her Master degree in
Sustainable Energy Competence in 2011 (University of
Applied Sciences Stuttgart). Between 2009 and 2011 she
worked for two years as a project engineer for energy
services and planning in Hamburg. Since finishing her Mas-
ter degree Karina Bloche-Daub is working as a research
assistant at the Deutsche Biomasseforschungszentrum
gGmbH (DBFZ). Her research activity focuses on regional
impacts of bioenergy use.
Janet Witt has been working at the Deutsche

Biomasseforschungszentrum gGmbH (DBFZ) since 2002.
During her studies of Building Service Engineering at the
University of Applied Science in Erfurt she has specialized
in engineering of heating, air conditioning & sanitary
installations and got practical experience as a consultant
during her work in an engineering office. Following, Janet
Witt graduated in Project Management of Energy and Envi-
ronment at the University of Northumbria in Newcastle
(UK). At the DBFZ she is team leader of the working
group “Biomass markets and Use” and coordinates national
and international projects in the field of market develop-
ment, market implementation and standardization of solid
biofuels (ISO, DIN) as well as bioenergy process assess-
ment. In her thesis at the Technical University in Hamburg
she researched the optimization of the wood pellet durability
during the production process and supply chain. Janet Witt
is member of the steering committee of the European Technology Platform on Renewable Heating
& Cooling and gives lectures in the field of renewable energy utilization options at the University
of Applied Science in Erfurt.
Volker Lenz studied Aerospace and Aeronautic Engineer-

ing (University of the Armed Forces Munich) and Energy
Economics (University of Applied Science Darmstadt). In
2010 he did his PhD in engineering at the Technical Univer-
sity Hamburg. From 2000 to 2005 he was Project Manager
for renewable energies at the hessenENERGIE GmbH.
From 2005 to 2008 he worked at the Institute for Energy
and Environment as Project Manager in the department
“Bioenergy Systems”. Since 2008 he is the Head of the
Department Thermo-chemical Conversion of the Deutsches
Biomasseforschungszentrum gemeinnützige GmbH
(DBFZ) in Leipzig. His research activity focuses on: funda-
mental and applied aspects of solid biomass fuel creation,
development and improvement of small scale furnaces and
boilers as well as on micro Combined-Heat-and-Power-
Systems with an emphasis on efficiency and emission reduc-
tion. Since some years he has been focusing his work on the
development, improvement and market integration of SmartBiomassHeat concepts using small
scale biomass conversion systems to integrate the renewable energies in a future energy system
and to stabilize the future energy supply with high amounts of fluctuating wind and photovoltaic
energy by demand-driven energy converters for solid biofuels. Volker Lenz is member of national
norming activities.
Michael Nelles is an environmental engineer and studied

Technical Environmental Protection (Technical University
of Berlin). From 1994 to 1999 he was the Vice Director of
the Department Waste Management of the
Montanuniversität Leoben in Austria. From 2000 to 2006
he was full professor of Environmental Engineering of the
University of Applied Science in G€ ottingen (Germany).
Since 2006 he is full professor of Waste Management and
Material Flow of the Faculty of Agricultural and Environ-
mental Sciences of the University of Rostock, Germany.
Since 2012 Prof. Nelles is also the Scientific Director of
the German Biomass Research Center (DBFZ) in Leipzig.
His research activity focuses on: fundamental and applied
aspects of waste management with an emphasis on technological, environmental and economic
aspects to mechanical, biological and thermal treatment systems of waste and biomass in different
recycling and recovery routes. He is a member of national and international advisory boards of
organisations in the field of waste management and biomass utilisation and also a board member of
different national and international conferences and journals. He has authored over 400 journal
articles and book chapters since 1994. His international activities focus on the Asian Region and in
particular on China (Guest Professor in Beijing, Hefei, Shanghai & Shenyang; National Friendship
Award 2011).
Consumer Preferences for Renewable
Energy
Roland Menges and Gregor Beyer
Abstract
In the face of the societal meta-topic of climate change, renewable energies
promise solutions to the manifold challenges of mostly unsustainable lifestyles.
This chapter is concerned with the concept of consumer preferences for renew-
able energy (RE) and provides an overview of the empirical literature on the
matter. The chapter begins with a general discussion of the concept of
preferences. It shows what assumption and preconditions must be accepted for
individual preferences to unfold a normative character for energy politics and
energy marketing that is in line with consumer sovereignty. The existing empiri-
cal literature on RE shows that there is a high social acceptance of RE. Beyond a
general approval of RE, however, there is little consensus in the literature. This
is in part a result of the complexity of the subject of investigation and the
heterogeneous methods used in preference elicitation. Yet the core cause of
diverging preferences for RE lies in the problem of public goods, which is shown
here in its purest form. For the marketing of RE in competitive markets it is
important that consumers make two conflicting demands. On the one hand,
individuals derive benefits from the moral satisfaction of voluntary climate-
friendly activities and RE development. On the other hand, they prefer political
mechanisms that guarantee the development of RE by collective obligations that
reduce or eliminate the possibility of free riding on other individuals’
expenditures.
R. Menges (*) • G. Beyer
Clausthal University of Technology, Department of Macroeconomics, Clausthal-Zellerfeld,
Germany
e-mail: roland.menges@tu-clausthal.de

50 R. Menges and G. Beyer
Keywords
Preference elicitation • Willingness-to-pay • Incentive compatibility • Stated
preferences • Revealed preferences
1 Introduction
The increasing development of renewable energies (REs) is not just a central but
also a deeply symbolic element of climate protection. In the electricity sector, the
enlargement of RE capacities leads to structural effects and the crowding-out of
conventional fossil power production facilities. This chapter examines how REs are
perceived and evaluated by individual consumers. The concept of economic
preferences is based on subjective reasoning. As such, this chapter discusses
technical attributes of RE and their impact on larger economic scales only insofar
as they effect individual utility.
• Following the perspective of environmental economics, the contributions of RE

to environmental and climate protection are of no absolute value. Instead, the
benefits and costs of RE are determined in relation to functional substitutes such
as alternative climate protection policies (for instance, in the context of
emissions trading).
• This includes matters original to the field of energy economics. For instance, the
development of renewables potentially reduces energy security owing to pro-
duction volatilities. Supply-side considerations of energy markets highlight the
interplay of fossil fuels and RE more as a complementary interaction instead of a
substitutional relationship. Hence, the integration of RE into energy markets
raises fundamental questions about market design (such as the prioritization of
the transmission of green electricity (GE) in transmission networks).
Most empirical studies show that the technical and abstract economic properties
of RE development, such as those mentioned previously, are of only minor impor-
tance for consumers’ assessments of RE. Contrary to ecological product attributes
that are easy to communicate and grasp, these aspects are unnatural to the decision
settings in which individuals reveal their preferences. Even if individuals are aware
of the technical attributes of RE, private energy consumers are interested in the
technical details of power supply only to a very limited degree.1
The majority of empirical studies cited in this chapter demonstrate that
consumers perceive and support the development of RE as a step toward an
environment- and climate-friendly energy supply. Individuals associate the promo-
tion of RE with a sustainable economy and lifestyle, particularly when the
1
This becomes evident in studies that quantify energy consumers’ willingness to pay for energy
security (Praktiknjo, 2014) or for the use of underground cables or overhead lines in transmission
network development (Menges and Beyer 2014).
Consumer Preferences for Renewable Energy 51
implications of RE development are discussed not only in the electricity sector but
also in heat production and transportation (by means of so-called alternative fuels).
Yet, there is little consensus on what conclusions may be drawn from these
perceptions by politicians and utilities.
• In ecological economics, the normative question is raised of whether projects

aiming to protect the environment and future generations’ interests ought to be
evaluated on behalf of present generations’ individual preferences at all. Voiced
concerns are that individual preferences may be instable or based on incomplete
or false information. Constructs such as consumer sovereignty or willingness to
pay are thus largely rejected in this discipline.
• In political economy, on the other hand, all policy goals are derived from
individual preferences. Thus, the development of RE is a set target. However,
it remains unclear which instruments should be used to endorse renewables, and
individual preferences only rarely specify mechanisms to finance political
programs. Relevant questions in this context include: Should renewables be
subject to competition or should their advancement be forced “from the top”
following the idea of the primacy of policy? Should consumers pay for RE
development? If so, how may an acceptable or adequate financial burden be
determined? Should the development be financed via tax revenues, public debts,
or surcharges on energy prices? Are there reasons to exempt poorer households
or businesses in international competition from financing RE policy?
The empirical literature on consumer preferences does not yield definite answers
to these questions. This is because the procedures used and results obtained in
various studies are not directly comparable. The methods of data collection
employed vary strongly and imply different theoretical views on preference elicita-
tion. Also, the concept of renewable energy is complex and interpreted heteroge-
neously, which hinders comparisons of different studies even if the same
methodology is used. In view of the foregoing considerations, this chapter aims
to provide a methodologically structured overview of the existing literature on
consumer preferences for RE and the conclusions drawn from it. To do so, the next
section specifies the concept of consumer preferences theoretically. The third
section briefly discusses the methods of data collection commonly used in the
empirical literature. The next section develops a framework for the elicitation of
consumer preferences that incorporates different dimensions/understandings/
accesses/interpretations of the topic of renewable energies. This framework is
then used to structure the existing literature on consumer preferences for RE and
their results. The chapter ends with a conclusion and outlook in the sixth section.
2 On the Concept of Preferences
Individual preferences are neither directly nor objectively measurable. Preferences

are much more complex than, for instance, opinions on or attitudes about desirable
or not-so-desirable projects. Preferences form the core of the economic
understanding of human behavior, yet the concept is used in many other areas of the
social sciences.
Following methodological individualism, any value originates from the valuing
individual. Any action, good, or thought (or the lack of these) contains value, when
their realization contributes to the fulfillment of any given need. In this setting,
preferences may be observed in defined, concrete decision settings as the ordering
of alternatives based on their relative utility. Every decision setting is defined by an
unlimited number of individual needs and a limited amount of resources available
to fulfill these needs. This forces individuals to choose between the needs they wish
to fulfill and the possible and available means of doing so. The results of these
choices constitute what is commonly described as behavior.
The degree to which any given behavior—which in economics most commonly
implies the purchase and consumption of goods—complements the fulfillment of
subjective individual needs is called utility. Although the concept of utility is
interpreted heterogeneously in different schools of economics (for instance, in
terms of measurability: ordinal or metric), its existence always acknowledges
individual preferences.
Preferences are assumed to be stable in the sense that they are exogenous and do
not change over time. This assumption is less of an attempt to develop a realistic
model of human behavior than a pragmatic methodological approach and may be
interpreted as labor division in the social sciences. In psychology and sociology, the
origins and developments of needs mark important research areas. In economics,
however, the process of need formation is largely omitted. Instead, economists
analyze observable behavior in the face of scarcity, though the idea that preferences
may be adaptive and subject to change is not excluded in principle. In descriptive
decision theory and in marketing, instable preferences are commonly remarked
upon, and leaning or adaptive preferences are (under certain conditions) compatible
with neoclassical theory (von Weizsäcker 2015).
The utility provided by a certain behavior is not objectively measureable, yet it is
the only motive of any individual. Faced with a known set of restrictions, and thus a
known set of possible choices, the observation of factual behavior allows the
formation of preference orders (see Pindyck and Rubinfeld 2009 for the
fundamentals of decision theory and the axioms used). Under the assumption that
individuals are able to assess their possible choices and order them in sequence of
decreasing utility, the observation of different choices under alternative restrictions
and choice sets allows insights into the utility associated with any choice.
A central concept in the measurement of preferences and utility is the willing-
ness to pay (WTP). Assuming that no individual will voluntarily lose utility, the
utility an individual realizes with choice A in any given setting is equal to the
maximum payment the individual is willing to make in order to realize that choice.2
2
If in a given setting the price of a choice is lower than an individual’s WTP for that choice, the
individual will realize that choice and profit from consumer surplus. An alternative measure of the
value or utility of a choice alternative is the willingness to accept (WTA). Here the utility of a
In other words, the utility of a choice or a good is determined by the willingness to

abstain from alternative goods or choices.
At this point, one might ask in what way such fundamental theories are relevant
for the evaluation of RE. The concept of consumers’ WTP might be a correct
indicator of the value of common consumer goods such as smart phones, and
market prices are a socially accepted measure of the value provided by said
products to society. However, there are good reasons to believe that consumers’
WTP does not reflect the value of RE correctly:
• The value of RE may not be readily derived from purchase and investment
behavior of consumers on conventional markets. These markets are usually
regulated and to a large extent depend on political decisions exogenous to the
respective markets.
• The provision and development of RE affects not just the interests and needs of
individual consumers but also the needs and (possibly restrictions) of society as a
whole.
Both of these aspects are discussed in detail with regard to the methods of
preference elicitation in Sect. 3 The underlying idea that preference intensity for
any given good is measured in opportunity costs is constitutive for all economic
methods. In environmental economics, for instance, the concept is used to evaluate
increases in environmental quality via environmental protective measures. Even
though “environmental quality” is an immaterial good that is not traded on markets,
and even though the potential benefits of improved environmental quality are
shared by numerous individuals, preference intensity is evident in the amount of
goods individuals are willing to give up in order to improve environmental quality.
The idea is also used in marketing research and by energy utilities: In the develop-
ment of new products such as eco-tariffs for electricity, consumers are regularly
asked for their WTP or willingness to accept for adopting the still fictional product.
2.1 Consumer Preferences and Consumer Responsibility
In the research on sustainability, there is great emphasis on the normative question

of the responsibility for sustainable consumption (Belz and Bilharz 2007). On one
side are the market optimists. Ever since the formation of the so-called Lifestyles of
Health and Sustainability (LOHAS), market optimists have believed that although
consumers accept government regulation of consumption as necessary, true
changes in consumption patterns rely on responsible individual action (Müller-
Friemauth 2009). On the other side, market skeptics warn of a counterproductive
“privatization of sustainability” (Grunwald 2010). In a similar manner, consumer
choice is equal to the minimum payment an individual must receive to abstain from that choice
without realizing utility losses. See Weimann (2009) for an in-depth description of the so-called
compensatory measures of welfare.
associations argue that political failures may not be compensated by ecologically

correct consumption and place the responsibility for sustainability on politicians. A
claim made here is that policy ought to “frame the conditions for sustainable
economies and sustainable consumption by formulating rules and laws” (Lell
2012, p. 38). Considered a compromise between market optimists and skeptics,
the model of shared responsibilities acknowledges the importance of both
regulators and consumers for sustainability. Ultimately, the two areas are indivisi-
ble (Bilharz et al. 2011). Applying this concept to RE, the model suggests that RE
should be promoted by government (for instance, via feed-in tariffs), while at the
same time individuals ought to make concerted efforts to help promote RE (for
instance, by changing electricity contracts).
From an economic perspective, this normative point of view is without conse-
quence as long as it is not translated into economic incentives. Normative ideals are
to be processed positively (Homann 1994) and only become morally justified when
reflected in empirical conditions (Suchanek 2007).3 Additionally, problems of
environmental politics, such as climate change, are defined by the very observation
that voluntary individual action leads to suboptimal allocations. The external
effects of individual behavior constitute market failure and call for social and
institutional regulation (Stübinger 2005, p. 132).
Economic theory discusses the relationship between individual behavior and
sustainability from the perspective of altruism. Economic theories of altruism
examine empirical decisions and behavior and their social results or consequences
(see Ockenfels 1999 for an overview). On the individual level, these results depend
on individual restrictions and preferences. On the social level, outcomes are a
function of the interactions between individuals. Relating the economic understand-
ing of altruism to the issue of responsibility for the social and ecological quality of
decision outcomes, the question of whether individual and collective decisions are
complementary or substitutionary to one another needs to be examined.
Climate protection activities are instruments to reduce the negative external
effects of economic activities. As such, climate protection may be interpreted as a
pure public good, the aggregate supply of which is equal to the sum of individual
efforts of emission reductions and other climate protection activities.4 On an
individual level, altruism would motivate decision makers to comply with
principles of sustainability. Since the pure altruist is indifferent to the source of
public good provisions, the familiar social dilemma of free riding occurs in which
market results are not socially optimal. Public provision of the public good—public
3
The proposition of empirically determining opinions on the basis of responsibility for
sustainability by means of surveys (Belz and Bilharz 2007, p. 40) appears to be of little value
for the empirical assessment of the conditions of real behavior.
4
The example of climate protection illustrates vividly that external effects and public goods are
two sides of the same coin. Consumers of the common resource “environment” neglect the
negative effects of their consumption on other consumers. This leads to overuse of the resource.
If consumers reduce their consumption voluntarily, then all other consumers benefit from that
reduction simultaneously. Also, no individual may be excluded from these benefits.
climate change activities—are perfect substitutes for individual provisions and are
unable to resolve the dilemma. The resulting crowding out of individual efforts to
protect the climate lead to constant aggregate provisions (neutrality theorem; see
Bergstrom et al. 1986).
The coexistence of public and private climate change activities observed in
the real RE market may be explained by the concept of impure altruists: Voluntary
climate protection activities are of intrinsic value and provide a “warm glow
of giving” (Andreoni 1990). If this is the case, voluntary contributions and
third-party contributions are imperfect substitutes, so that the crowding out of
individual activities is incomplete. [Crumpler and Grossman (2008) provide an
overview of empirical findings on this matter; Croson (2007) even reports of
crowding in, whereas Brooks (2000) and Menges et al. (2005) observe nonlinear
relationships.]
An implicit assumption of the economic models of altruism is the reversibility of
behavioral changes on the individual level caused by government activities. Under
certain conditions, a policy featuring extrinsic incentives to promote a particular
behavior may alter intrinsic motivation of individuals with lasting effect (Frey
1997). In such settings, there is a path dependency for collective and individual
action that is explained by a subjective depreciation of moral activities (Akerlof and
Dickens 1982) or a loss of reputation (Bénabou and Tirole 2006).5
2.2 Preferences, Attitudes and Behavior
In the social sciences, there are two rivaling approaches on the question of whether
individual behavior may solve or reduce environmental problems.
• In economic theory, environmental problems are caused by the institutional

conditions of individual behavior. According to the economic model of behav-
ior, individuals react systematically to changing incentives or restrictions in
accordance with their preferences. This means that changes made to relative
prices (for instance via taxes) are possible solutions to environmental problems.
The normative goal for policy is to create incentives that harmonize individual
and collective rationale without offsetting consumer sovereignty.
• In sociology and psychology, however, the focus is placed on the concepts of
attitudes and morals. If environmental problems originate in the conflict
between short-term egoistic and long-term collective interests, in the majority
of social sciences their solution requires adjustments in the individual attitudes
5
Goeschl and Perino (2009) describe an experiment in which probands decided on individual
payoffs usable for private consumption and real CO2 certificates. They observe that the taxation of
private consumption reduced the intrinsic motivation for certificate purchase. It was concluded
that policymakers ought not rely on both individual WTP and extrinsic incentives simultaneously
(Falk and Kosfeld 2003; Meier 2007). The finding of long-lasting or irreversible crowding out of
intrinsic motivation is supported by many studies (Frey and Jegen 2001).
and morals. Many studies that identify a gap between the positive general
attitude toward the environment and its protection on the one hand and factual
behavior on the other stress the importance of information to strengthen the
ecological knowledge of individuals.
A conclusive discussion on these two approaches may not be undertaken here

(see for instance Menges et al. 2004a). However, there remains a question that is
highly relevant for consumer research: What is the relationship between
preferences and attitudes?
• In sociology and psychology, research on preferences for GE (e.g., Rowlands

et al. 2003; Wortmann et al. 1996) is based on the hypothesis that individual
environmental awareness determines the evaluation and choice of electricity
contracts. This is why in these studies individual environmental attitudes are
elicited in surveys and then used to explain factual behavior. To simplify:
awareness and attitudes are concepts to explain behavior.6
• Economic approaches go in the opposite direction. In economic studies decision
settings are artificially constructed to best simulate real restrictions and choice
outcomes. Behavior explains preferences, that is, individual preferences are
revealed by choices made, or, expressed in a more formal manner: preferences,
which cannot be observed directly, can be reconstructed by analyzing observable
choices.
In economic theory, preferences are thus often defined as “a decider’s attitudes

towards consequences or towards choice alternatives” (Eisenführ and Weber 2003,
p. 31). This means that preferences are related to choice alternatives, whereas
attitudes—such as environmental consciousness—are of a more general nature.
They are regarded as predispositions of individual behavior and considered in the
course of preference measurement. The operationalization of preferences in indi-
6
Methodologically, these methods are doubtable when they resemble so-called participating
observations. Participating observation is a method that was developed in the field of community
work. It aims to motivate individuals to actively pursue their interest (e.g., Lüttringhaus and
Richers 2003). In some research on the potentials of GE by Birzle-Harder and G€ otz (2010), group
discussions were run that included members of the environmentalist group BUND that were
invited as advisory experts (p. 21). The results of these group discussions suggest that consumers
are willing to accept a price premium of 10% for GE. Furthermore, utilities and GE providers
ought to cooperate with local climate protection groups when marketing their products (p. 35). In
doing so, “engaged media” and “organs of engaged groups” ought to be considered at all times
(p. 23). One might ask whether these results reflect true insights into individual consumer behavior
and whether the method used fulfills standard criteria of reliability and validity. Such a blend of
normative and positive questions also sheds a critical light on the tendency for transdisciplinary
research, particularly in research on sustainability. This approach requires researchers to account
for the interest of relevant stakeholders even in the theoretical phase of research conception.
vidual WTP provides insights into the structure of the underlying preferences
for GE.
3 Methods of Preference Elicitation
The methods used to measure consumers’ WTP may be categorized in three groups
(Fig. 3.1). The first group of methods relies on market data. Field research such as
market observations or field experiments yield more robust results than methods
that rely on hypothetical decision settings and questions. These methods elicit
individual behavior mostly free of biases (for instance, caused by interviewers)
and are of high external validity (Skiera and Revenstorff 1999, p. 224). However,
the collection of market data is cost-intensive (Hüttner et al. 1999, p. 50). Also,
market data are usually highly aggregated, which makes it difficult to derive WTP
on the individual level. Furthermore, it is problematic that preferences may only be
determined for factual consumers. Information on nonconsumers is unavailable.
Second, if no “real” market data are available—for instance, in the case of
preferences for nonmarketable goods—there are alternative methods, referred to
as direct or indirect methods (Wricke and Herrmann 2002, p. 573; Gabor and
Granger 1966, p. 45; Kalish and Nelson 1991, p. 328). A prominent example of
direct methods is the contingent valuation. In this method, individuals are presented
with two discrete choice alternatives that are identical except for the provision of
the good that is to be evaluated. One of the choice alternatives is described as the
status quo, and the test persons are then asked how much they would be willing to
Experimental methods
(e.g. test markets, field experiments)
Market data
Non-experimental methods
(e.g. market observations)
Direct methods
(e.g. contingent valuation)
Preference data
Indirect methods
(e.g. travel cost analysis, conjoint-analysis)
Incentive compatible
(e.g. Vickrey-auction)
Auctions
Non-incentive compatible
(e.g. highest-bid-auction)
Purchase offers
Incentive compatible
(e.g. BDM mechanism)
Lotteries
Non incentive compatible
Fig. 3.1 Methods of WTP elicitation (Reproduced from Menges et al. (2004b), p. 249)
pay for realizing the alternative choice or scenario. WTP may also be measured
using payment cards or referenda, either of which may be used once or multiple
times. The characteristic feature of direct methods is that WTP is elicited for a
variation of the good directly. In contrast, indirect methods determine WTP based
on information about behavior and preferences for goods that are related but not
identical to the good to be evaluated. Examples of indirect methods include hedonic
regression, travel cost analysis, conjoint analysis, and their derivatives, such as the
discrete-choice experiment. Hedonic regression uses market data on goods that
differ in various attributes. Among these attributes is the one that is to be
evaluated—for example, some environmental property—and in the comparison of
the market prices of goods that are equal in everything except that attribute,
evaluation becomes possible (Baumgartner 1997, p. 16). In travel cost analysis,
the value of a good is derived from the costs individuals bear in order to consume a
given good (e.g., a park). Conjoint analysis is a method in which individuals make
multiple decisions between choice alternatives that differ in various attributes.
Assuming that the utility provided by one alternative is defined by the sum of the
utilities of its attributes, the conjoint method may be used to measure WTP for any
given attribute (Weiber and Rosendahl 1997, p. 109).
In the third group of methods, individuals are presented with “real” purchase
offers. Because of its incentive compatibility (Sect. 3.2), the Vickrey auction
(second-price sealed-bid auction) (Vickrey 1961, p. 20) is the most commonly
used method. The Becker–DeGroot–Marschak approach (BDM) (Becker et al.
1964) is another widely used method that employs a series of lotteries to determine
the value of a given good.
3.1 The Special Case of Environmental Goods
When measuring individual WTP for environmentally friendly products, the fact
that these products are public goods needs to be taken into consideration. This may
be shown with the example of GE. The positive effects that a higher GE share in the
electricity mix have on the environment are shared by everyone (nonexcludable),
and the benefit any individual realizes is independent of other individuals’ benefit
(nonrivalrous). The positive theory of public goods postulates that in this setting,
individuals behave strategically and disguise their true preferences by understating
their WTP. However, this thesis has been confuted partially both empirically
(Rondeau et al. 1999, p. 456) and theoretically (Andreoni 1989, p. 1448). The
concepts of impure altruism, the warm glow of giving, and the purchase of moral
satisfaction (Kahneman and Knetsch 1992, p. 64), discussed earlier, relate to the
fact that individuals experience utility from moral behavior, which reduces the
incentive to free-ride.
However, the assumption of the existence of nonuse values as well as altruistic
or intrinsic motives contains strong implications for the methods of preference
elicitation (Meyerhoff 2001, p. 393). Indirect methods such as travel cost analysis
“only” account for prices and quantity and are unable to assess values that are
independent from factual use (Degenhardt and Gronemann 1998, p. 1). For one,
market data for the protection of environmental goods usually do not exist. Also, a
price only reflects the WTP of the marginal consumer and thus does not mirror
collective utility. This is why in the evaluation of environmental goods and public
goods in general the method of contingent valuation is particularly useful. The
controlled variation of provision levels of environmental quality (and environmen-
tal quality alone) enables the elicitation of environmental preferences in a con-
trolled manner.
3.2 The Problem of Incentive Compatibility
WTP estimates are valid only if elicitation methods incentivize “true” statements or
behavior. This means that data need to be free from noneconomic influences. Using
the example of economic experiments, the so-called father of experimental eco-
nomics Vernon Smith identifies various criteria that elicitation methods need to
fulfill to be incentive compatible (Smith 1982). Test subjects ought to make choices
autonomously (privacy), and the incentives provided need to outweigh any other
potential incentives of decision making (dominance). Furthermore, the elicitation
design needs to be salient in that incentive mechanisms should reward “better”
choices. Finally, incentives need to be provided in a manner that incentives are
always functional and not subject to satiation (nonsatiation). Elicitation methods
that comply with all these conditions may be considered as making up an institu-
tional framework in which individuals behave rationally in the economic sense.
Based on these criteria, methods of WTP elicitation that rely on hypothetical
decisions are doubtable because they provoke a systematic overstatement of WTPs.
“In choice experiments, customers can have a tendency to de-emphasize price,
since they do not have to actually pay the price” (Goett et al. 2000, p. 27).7 This is
true of direct elicitation methods, such as contingent valuation (Cummings et al.
1986), and indirect ones, such as conjoint analysis (Roe et al. 2001, p. 917; Roe
et al. 1996, p. 158).
Economic quasi-field experiments designed to determine the WTP for GE as
pioneered by Menges et al. (2004a, 2004b, 2005) circumvent these issues by
assigning real monetary value to hypothetical choices. Nonetheless, in compliance
with a number of theoretical standards the validity of hypothetical methods may be
increased significantly. In the case of the contingent valuation method, the Report
of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation (Arrow et al. 1993) contains a list of
the possible causes of biases in stated preferences and names methodological
criteria suited to counteract these causes. Since the issue of incentive compatibility
may thus be nullified, methods of preference determination that rely on
7
Hasanov (2010) acknowledges the hypothetical nature of the preferences for GE obtained from a
telephone survey by using the term payment readiness instead of WTP.
hypothetical decision settings are widely spread, particularly because they are
easily accessible and generally less expensive to conduct.
4 Consumer Preferences for Renewable Energy
Independently of the method used in preference elicitation, the need to specify the
concept of RE in any elicitation format poses challenges. This section shows how
spatial, temporal, and factual classifications of RE are used in preference and WTP
measurement. In short, there is no objective assessment of RE in the sense of an
all-encompassing model or concept. Instead, any preference measurement requires
the specification of a decision setting that involves the characterization of RE by
means of (more or less arbitrarily) chosen dimensions and aspects. This is important
because preferences are revealed in and limited to specific sets of restrictions. Since
these restrictions may be designed at will, there is a potentially infinite amount of
possible approaches to the subject of RE.
This is in part due to the complexity and heterogeneity of the concept of RE. As
an umbrella term, REs can be regarded from different angles. In an extensive meta-
anaylsis on WTP estimates for GE, for instance, Sundt and Rehdanz (2015)
identifiy eight different aspects of GE that are subject to evaluation. Individual
preferences for RE may concern energy sources (e.g., wind power versus solar
power) (Borchers et al. 2007). The term also comprises technologies used in energy
transformation (solar heat versus photovoltaic) (Scarpy and Willis 2010) and in a
broader frame encloses political programs and questions of energy infrastructure
(Grieger and Cie Marktforschung 2013; Menges and Beyer 2014).
Even within a particular concept of RE, the aspects that are regarded in the
decision settings offered in preference elicitation vary widely. This is quite evident
in a comparison of studies measuring WTP for electricity from renewable sources.
Henry et al. (2011), for instance, elicit WTP without specifically outlining the
effects of changes to the generation system. Such effects are described in the
study undertaken by Bigerna and Polinori (2014), who also mention the positive
effects of GE on the environment. Roe et al. (2001) frame decision settings in an
even more detailed fashion and list the greenhouse gas emissions of different power
mixes. Other aspects of electricity generation from renewable sources that are
considered in preference elicitation include effects on the labor market, energy
security, national self-sufficiency, and landscape protection (Kaenzig et al. 2013).
These examples demonstrate that the empirical literature on individual preferences
is characterized by framing effects (Tversky and Kahneman 1986). Differences in
the presentation of choice settings affect WTP measures, and the criterion of
procedural invariance is not fulfilled.
Studies that determine WTP for RE also vary in the time span they consider.
Time may be incorporated into elicitation techniques in various ways and increase
the complexity of decision tasks. In most studies, time is excluded from decision
settings, and decisions are made and come into effect immediately (e.g., Mozumder
et al. 2011). In contrast, studies such as the one conducted by Guo et al. (2014) elicit
WTP for changes in the energy mix “in the next five years.” In both cases the object
of investigation is the WTP for renewable power supply, yet the individual studies
assess different preference orders. In the case of incentive-compatible methods,
another determinant of WTP may be the point in time at which opportunity costs
come into effect. If WTP is measured via contingent valuation, the payment vehicle
used in preference elicitation may imply immediate (Andor et al. 2014) or future
spending (Abdullah and Jeanty 2011).
Uncertainty and risk are incorporated into decision settings in similarly hetero-
geneous ways. In the field of RE, uncertainty is a major determinant of individual
decisions on short-term consumption and long-term investments (Soroudi and
Amraee 2013). Whether and how uncertainties are addressed in preference elicita-
tion has an important effect on WTP measurements.
Despite the manifold approaches to the subject of RE, the breadth and number of
studies on consumer WTP may be reduced to two categories. In one category,
consumers act on competitive markets (as consumers or investors), whereas in the
other category individual consumers’ preferences are elicited in a political context.
This segmentation of the literature will be used in what follows to identify
statements that are robust over varying elicitation methods and approaches to RE.
Consumer Preferences in Competitive Markets Consumer decisions on RE in

competitive markets in the different sectors may be subdivided into direct and
indirect decisions. Households mainly consume energy in the forms of heat and
electricity. The second largest consumption factor is transportation. Choices on
supply tariffs thus constitute a meaningful choice for the direct demand for RE,
whereas the choice of transportation means reveals preferences for RE indirectly.
Consumer Preferences for Energy Supply A prominent and demonstrative exam-

ple for consumer preferences regarding the direct supply of RE is the demand for
GE. The subject has been intensively investigated8 and approached from various
angles. A large proportion of studies focus on the WTP for GE and the factors that
may explain this WTP. A first baseline result is that even though GE is framed in
different ways (Forsa 2011), there is a general positive WTP (e.g., Andor et al.
2014; Anselm 2012; Bigerna and Polinori 2014; Zorić and Hrovatin 2012; Henry
et al. 2011; Gr€osche and Schr€oder 2011; Seung-Hoon and So-Yoon 2009; Menges
et al. 2005). The magnitude of WTP varies broadly, however.
Regarding the factors that influence individual WTP for GE, a core result is that
the preferences for eco-tariffs depend on the power source and electricity transfor-
mation technologies used in electricity generation. Different RE sources are valued
differently. Electricity from solar power is preferred most, and electricity generated
from wind is preferred to tariffs that feature hydropower. Furthermore,
8
Sundt and Rehdanz (2015) identify 101 WTP studies for GE focusing on the English literature
alone.
heterogeneous electricity mixes are met with a higher WTP than tariffs that rely on
one power source only (Burkhalter et al. 2009). On a general note and in accordance
with economic theory, WTP for electricity tariffs increases in accordance with the
share of renewables they comprise (Menges et al. 2005; Gr€osche and Schr€oder
2011).
Owing to the homogeneous nature of electricity, consumers may not retrace the
power source used in electricity generation easily. In light of the positive WTPs for
GE and their shares in electricity mixes, it is surprising that consumers are hardly
willing to pay for proofs of origin (Anselm 2012). Winther and Ericson (2012),
Kaenzig et al. (2013), and Mattes (2012) argue that the existence of certificates,
labels, and seals is mostly unknown and that the corresponding documents and
concepts remain largely misunderstood and have aroused little interest. These
findings lie in juxtaposition to the growing efforts of energy suppliers that consider
certificates of power sources a successful tool of GE marketing (Reichmuth 2014).
Another segment of consumer research addresses the observation that in spite of
a general positive WTP for GE, the number of consumers voluntarily and actively
switching from conventional to green tariffs remains low. The barriers that are
believed to hinder switching behavior in deregulated electricity markets range from
high search and transaction costs over loyalties to former energy suppliers to
insufficient financial incentives (e.g., Yang 2014; MacPherson and Lange 2013;
Gamble et al. 2009; Sunderer 2006). Other barriers to switching are information
gaps, misinformation, and misconceptions of potential consumers (see Sunderer
2006 on the ipsative area of action). Moreover, Boardman et al. (2006) show that
consumers fear that a majority of GE tariffs are “rebranded conventional tariffs.
This directly relates to the aforementioned findings of WTP for origin certificates
and reveals a fundamental problem in GE marketing: On the one hand, consumers
doubt the composition of green mixes; on the other hand labels and certificates
apparently are not suitable instruments for reducing that skepticism.
Another strand of the literature on consumer preferences addresses instruments
to overcome the barriers that prevent consumers from translating WTP into demand
and formulating recommendations for the marketing of GE (e.g., Hübner et al.
2012). Wiser (1998), for instance, examines different organizational structures of
GE suppliers and reports that GE marketing ought to be focusing on local target
groups to build trust and customer relationships. This assessment is supported by
Mattes (2012) and Bethke (2011), who show that WTP for GE increases with the
proximity of generation facilities to consumers’ places of residence. Other market-
ing recommendations concern the emphasis of subjective psychological aspects of
the utility offered by GE. Marketing should appeal to consumers’ sense of respon-
sibility for the environment and underline the moral satisfaction that results from
environmental protection (Herbes and Ramme 2014). Other studies refer to the
manifold nonfinancial motives of potential GE consumers and highlight the rele-
vance of market segmentation and target group focus in marketing (Rundle-Thiele
et al. 2008).
Consumer Preferences for Transportation The better part of energy consumption

in the transportation sector stems from traffic in general and individual motor car
traffic in particular (Dena 2012). Hence, consumer preferences for RE in the
transportation sector are most commonly elicited in the field of alternative automo-
tive fueling technologies. In contrast to the purchase of GE, preferences for such
technologies are indirect measures for the preferences for RE. This conceptual
difference shows up in the following robust result confirmed in a variety of studies:
WTP for alternative drives is low (sometimes even negative) and is the polar
opposite to the generally positive evaluation of WTP for GE (e.g. Axsen et al.
2013; Hackbarth and Madlener 2013; Jensen et al. 2013; Lo 2013; Ziegler 2012;
Hidrue et al. 2011). Notably, preferences for alternative driving technologies are
low regardless of whether consumers have gained real-world driving experience in
test drives (Jensen et al. (2013).
Analogous to the heterogeneous preferences for different sources of GE, there
are substantial differences in the preferences for alternative drives. A definitive
order does not exist: Ziegler (2012) finds that consumer preferences are strongest
for hybrid cars yet admits that this result is not shared in similar studies in the field.
Hackbarth and Madlener (2013) observe that preferences for specific alternative
drive technologies depend on the area of operation or the purpose of the vehicle.
Natural gas vehicles and hybrid cars are less preferred in urban areas.
The low WTP values for alternative driving technologies may be explained by
various additional factors not directly related to RE. In vehicle purchase, aside from
purchase and running costs, the most important product attributes are engine power,
range, and refueling possibilities/infrastructure. Since in general alternative drive
cars meet these demands to a lesser extent than conventionally fueled cars, the
negative verdict on RE in the transportation sector is conclusive. Interestingly,
however, in almost all studies on individuals’ WTP for alternative drive
technologies, the level of CO2 emissions is a significant explanatory factor
(Hackbarth and Madlener 2013; Jensen et al. 2013). This indicates that the positive
environmental effects of RE are a central motive for RE purchase and that, in
principle, consumers do approve of alternative drive technologies. The fact that
consumers still prefer conventional drive technologies is thus due to the fact that
individuals weigh the individual costs of reduced range or power more strongly
than the positive public effects of RE use. This conclusion is supported by WTP
studies that contain self-disclosures of participants. Consumers who describe them-
selves as environmentally aware and who value engine power less express a higher
WTP for alternative fuels (Hackbarth and Madlener 2013; Ziegler 2012).
Consumer Preferences in Political Environments In making voting decisions,

consumers exert an influence on the conditions that determine the development of
RE markets, technologies, and policies. Consumers shape public opinion and form
a collective will. Social acceptance is an essential condition for the success of
political programs and realization of specific projects and may ultimately be
reduced to individual preferences.
Preferences and Political Programs Across the globe, governments actively pro-
mote the development of RE. Programs, measures, and concepts such as energy
transition in Germany, green home scheme in England, or the state-level renewable
portfolio standard (RPS) in the USA vary substantially, however. Programs differ
in terms of specific goals, in terms of the instruments and measures to achieve these
goals, and in the private and public resources committed to them.9 Even though this
implies difficulties in formulating general statements on consumer preferences for
RE programs, the very existence of RE programs may be interpreted as an expres-
sion of consumer preferences for RE when consumers vote in fair and transparent
democratic systems.
In Germany, preference elicitations find a strong preference for the active
political support of the development of RE (Grieger and Cie Marktforschung
2013; Agentur für Erneuerbare Energien 2012; Christ and Bothe 2007). Yet the
work presented by Grieger and Cie Marktforschung (2013) underlines the relevance
of the aforementioned free-riding motive in RE support. There are significant
differences in the WTP for an energy transition depending on whether the payment
vehicle used in preference elicitation involves voluntary individual or compulsory
collective efforts. If WTP is measured in a collective context that excludes the
possibility of free riding, WTP is higher and more frequently positive.
The incentive-compatible experiments described by Menges et al. (2005) and
Menges and Traub (2009) on the WTP for GE arrive at similar conclusions.
Measuring not the absolute WTP but its reaction to external parameters, the
researchers gained insights into the individual motives for GE purchase. Among
the variations made to the experimental setup were the share of GE in the electricity
mix and the conceptual decision modus; in one setting, individuals acted as
individual energy consumers, whereas in the other setting individuals acted as
voters who were making a collective choice (simulated using the median voter
theorem) on the share of RE in the electricity mix. An important implication of
these experiments is that individuals are concerned with the context in which the
payments they made to promote RE come into effect. While a conjoint analysis
conducted by Goett et al. (2000) suggests that consumers are only marginally
interested in the social consequences of GE purchase and that WTP is mostly
driven by the purchase of moral satisfaction, the aforementioned experiments
imply the opposite. Consumers reveal distinctly different preferences for GE in
individual and collective decision settings. If consumers were driven by individual
warm-glow motives, then WTP would have had to be the same in collective and
individual elicitation contexts. However, WTP was significantly and decisively
higher in votes on collective, obligatory payments. In the face of the social
prominence of the subject, the question of whether voluntary individual activities
for climate protection may be considered substitutes for government activities must
be answered in the negative.
9
Refer to International Energy Agency (2014) for an overview.
Another important result of the aformentioned experiments is the nonlinear

relationship between WTP and subjective opinions on the share of the electricity
price that is reserved for RE promotion. Below a certain critical estimate on that
share, higher electricity prices are met with a higher WTP for GE (crowding in).
Individuals who perceive that the share of electricity price used for RE develop-
ment is higher than that critical value react to increases in the electricity price with a
reduced WTP (crowding out).10
The nonneutrality of government activities on individual behavior may be
explained by the concept of impure altruism. Private and public activities are not
complete substitutes. However, the nonlinearity of the rates of substitution has
attracted significant research interest in the social sciences, including economics
(e.g., Matiaske and Weller 2006).
The finding of free-riding motives and the relevance of the perceived effective-
ness of payments for GE development suggest that preferences for GE are deter-
mined by social factors. Also, individual WTP seems to be driven by skepticism
toward markets as allocation mechanisms. Together with the liberalization of
electricity markets, the ongoing public debate on climate change has made envi-
ronmental friendliness a relevant criterion in the choice of electricity suppliers. Yet
the commercial success of GE has not met expectations. The results described
earlier propose that this may be traced back to individuals’ preferences for collec-
tively obligatory regulation over market-based offers. This interpretation conforms
to the political economy of environmental protection, which assumes that when in
doubt, individuals prefer government regulation over incentivized voluntary action
(Kirchgässner and Schneider 2003). In political economy, however, this preference
for regulation is explained by individual irrationality in the form of cost illusion:
utility-maximizing individuals would incorrectly assume that regulations do not
alter individual mean incomes and vote accordingly. In the case of GE develop-
ment, the experiments described here falsify that theory. In collective choices,
individuals not only voted for higher shares of renewables in the electricity mix
but also revealed a considerably higher WTP for GE then in decisions on individual
contracts.
The free-riding motive is thus of great importance in the development of
political RE programs. The findings reported earlier suggest that instruments
establishing regulative constraint and thereby eliminating the possibility to behave
strategically may lead to a faster development of RE than incentive-based
instruments. Research on consumer preferences for specific policies supports this
claim. While economic cost–benefit analyses of feed-in tariffs arrive at heteroge-
neous conclusions on program effectiveness and efficiency (Jenner et al. 2013;
Butler and Neuhoff 2008), there is a clear consumer preference for such tariffs
(Agentur für Erneuerbare Energien 2012).
10
Similar results are available on individual donations to welfare organizations (Brooks 2000).
Consumers and Projects of Public Interest The political programs for RE promo-
tion imply extensive changes to the energy economy. The reorientation of genera-
tion systems and the resulting need to adjust the energy infrastructure entail
immense investment needs. As shown earlier, consumers are generally willing to
accept cost increases on energy markets for the promotion of RE. However,
consumers are far more critical to concrete investment projects aiming to secure
energy security by means of power generation and distribution in a RE economy
(Althaus 2012).
Resistance to the construction of RE supply capacities is most frequently voiced
by residents in the vicinity of projected facilities. This observation is (not uncon-
troversially) (Wolsink 2012) conflated in the term nimby (not in my back yard),
which expresses the idea that objections to construction are motivated by the mostly
local negative effects of project realization.11
The fact that protests to the development of RE arise mainly locally is undis-
puted. More controversial is the question of the possible causes of nimby protests.
Originally, local protest was interpreted as egoistic behavior (Esaiasson 2014).
Relevant motives were the avoidance of visual and acoustic impairments by local
facilities (Kontogianni et al. 2014) or the depreciation of real estate (Dear 1992).
More recently, however, it has been shown that protests are also sparked by altruism
and moral-ethical considerations. Bidwell (2013), for instance, examines protests to
wind power stations. He demonstrates that resistance to construction is not due to
individual and particular interests but rather collective interests. Study participants
expressed concerns that windmill construction might pose financial risks for the
local government. Another cause of protest lies in fundamental concepts
individuals have of justice and inequality aversion. The siting of generation
facilities is subject to natural and technical restrictions (e.g., solar exposure for
photovoltaic or transmission loss). Thus, residents of locations that are favorable to
facility operators are more likely to be impaired by potential negative—and more
likely to benefit from potential positive—effects of RE projects. If the potential
benefits and costs are high, this inequality may cause local protests (Pol et al. 2006).
Since local protests are a common and costly obstacle to RE development,
significant efforts have been made to discover efficient instruments to their abate-
ment. One such instrument is residential participation (Jami and Walsh 2014). The
financial involvement in RE projects, for instance by means of cooperatives and
other corporative forms, combats inequality aversion and calms local protests.
Similarly, the inclusion of residents in planning and organizational processes is
considered a proven means to increase the local acceptance of RE projects (Jones
and Eiser 2010).12
11
The concept of nimby is not limited to the context of RE. Other areas nimby is relevant to is the
siting of landfills, cell towers, or even accommodation for the homeless.
12
Other studies suggest that participation might have contrary effects on the social acceptance of
RE projects. Menges and Beyer (2014) show for the case of transmission network development,
that households who call for participation programs are significantly more likely to object to local
grid construction plans than households that favor an supra-regional coordination of grid
In a discussion on nimby effects, it needs to be stressed that local protests to RE

projects are mostly focused on plans and propositions. It has been shown that
objections to RE projects decline significantly once projected plans are realized
and residents familiarize themselves with the outcomes (van der Horst 2007). A
similar effect may be observed in connection with the distance of a project site to
individuals’ homes. The habituation effect describes the counterintuitive observa-
tion that objections to RE projects increase with the distance of individuals’ homes
from project locations. Conversely, acceptance of RE projects increases with
proximity of individual residences to project sites (Menges and Beyer 2014). A
possible explanation for the habituation effect is the overestimation of impairments
caused by the planned facilities that dissipates once individuals gain experience,
which happens more quickly in closer proximity. This interpretation is the basis for
another instrument used to increase the social acceptance of RE projects: road
shows and discussions on network construction frequently organized by transmis-
sion network operators, which show vividly that communication and information
represent effective means of avoiding local protests.
5 Conclusion
In consumers’ eyes, RE is deeply symbolic. RE promises answers to many

challenges of modern society. From an economic perspective, RE is not consumer
goods in the classical sense but rather serves as an input in the production of energy
services in the housing and transport sectors. As such, RE may be substituted by and
compete with conventional energy sources.
Analyzing empirical estimates of WTP, there is a broad consensus that RE
enjoys high social acceptance and that consumers are willing to pay for its
advancement. Beyond this general approval of RE, there is little consistency in
the results on selected topics in the field. This is in part caused by heterogeneous
methods of data collection and interpretations of the concept of RE. However, the
core of the problem lies in the nature of public goods. Compared to equally
symbolic private goods such as organic fruits, the purchase of RE provides fewer
private benefits. Why should individuals purchase products whose benefits—
whether emission reductions or the protection of scarce resources—are shared
globally? Economists answer this question with the concept of impure altruism.
Individuals experience utility from altruistic behavior and moral consumption that
complement the public effects of RE promotion.
From an economic perspective, the results of consumer research may be
condensed to the following statements:
development. This finding suggests that participation mechanisms are subject to sample-selection-
bias, as participation mechanisms may include an over proportional share of protesting households
relative to the total population.
1. Consumers indicate and reveal a positive WTP for RE if the purchase of RE

provides moral satisfaction. In areas where this moral surplus is low compared to
the utility derived from other product features, the general acceptance of RE
does not translate into market demand. This is the case in the area of alternative
fuels in the transportation sector, for instance.
2. The social acceptance and a general WTP for RE may be considered unstable;
free riding is an essential motive of impure altruists. Consumers purchasing RE
for environmental protection reduce the incentive for other people to follow suit.
Furthermore, it remains unclear how far voluntary consumer promotion of RE
will go when energy prices increase as a result of structural changes of the
energy market caused by increasing shares of RE in the energy mix. This issue is
particularly important for low-income consumers who are more affected by
increases in energy prices.
3. It is thus logical that the consent given to political support of RE development is
especially stable in studies that suggest a binding collective effort. As soon as a
credible scheme for obligatory RE support and its financing is provided, the free-
riding motive is eliminated.
The analysis of consumer preferences for RE suggests some important

conclusions for the marketing of RE in competitive markets. Strategies aiming to
convert consumers’ latent WTP for environmental protectoin into purchase behav-
ior need to account for two conflicting aspects. On the one hand, marketing
activities need to address and invoke nonmaterial individual warm-glow motives
that result from voluntary environmental protection activities. At the same time,
collective and binding aspects of RE development (for instance with regard to
financing) need to be communicated. This is to reassure consumers that individual
efforts made to promote RE may not be taken advantage of by other consumers,
competitors, or even utilities.
References
Abdullah, S., & Jeanty, P. W. (2011). Willingness to pay for renewable energy: Evidence from a
contingent valuation survey in Kenya. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(6),
2974–2983.
Agentur für Erneuerbare Energien e.V. (2012). Akzeptanz und Bürgerbeteiligung für Erneuerbare
Energien. Renews Spezial, 60.
Althaus, M. (2012). Schnelle Energiewende—bedroht durch Wutbürger und Umweltverbände?
Protest, Beteiligung und politisches Risikopotenzial für Großprojekte im Kraftwerk- und
Netzausbau. In L. L. Ungvári (Ed.), Wissenschaftliche Beitr€
age 2012 (pp. 103–114). Wildau:
TH Wildau.
Akerlof, G. A., & Dickens, T. D. (1982). The economic consequences of cognitive dissonance.
American Economic Review, 72, 307–319.
Andreoni, J. (1989). Giving with impure altruism: Applications to charity and Ricardian equiva-
lence. Journal of Political Economy, 97(6), 1447–1458.
Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow
giving. The Economic Journal, 100(6), 464–477.
Andor, M. A., Frondel, M., Vance, C., et al. (2014). Diskussionspapier: Zahlungsbereitschaft für
grünen Strom—Die Kluft zwischen Wunsch und Wirklichkeit. RWI Materialien, 79(13).
Anselm, M. (2012). Grüner strom: Verbraucher sind bereit, für Investitionen in erneuerbare
Energien zu zahlen. DIW Wochenbericht, 79(7).
Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P. R., Leamer, E. E., Radner, R., Schuman, H., et al. (1993). Report
of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register, 58(10), 4601–4614.
Axsen, J., Orlebar, C., Skippon, S., et al. (2013). Social influence and consumer preference
formation for pro-environmental technology: The case of a U.K. workplace electric-vehicle
study. Ecological Economics, 95, 96–107.
Baumgartner, B. (1997). Monetäre Bewertung von Produkteigenschaften auf dem deutschen
Automobilmarkt mit Hilfe hedonischer Modelle. Marketing ZFP, 19(1), 15–25.
Becker, G. M., DeGroot, M. H., Marschak, J., et al. (1964). Measuring utility by a single-response
sequential method. Behavioral Science, 9(3), 226–232.
Belz, F.-M., & Bilharz, M. (2007). Nachhaltiger Konsum, geteilte Verantwortung und
Verbraucherpolitik: Grundlagen. In F.-M. Belz, G. Karg, D. Witt, et al. (Eds.), Nachhaltiger
Konsum und Verbraucherpolitik im 21. Jahrhundert (pp. 21–52). Marburg: Metropolis.
Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2006). Incentives and prosocial behavior. American Economic Review,
96, 1652–1678.
Bergstrom, T., Blume, L., Varian, H., et al. (1986). On the private provision of public goods.
Journal of Public Economics, 29, 25–49.
Bethke, N. (2011). Additiver Umweltnutzen als individuelles Entscheidungskriterium f€ ur die Wahl
€
von Okostrom. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Bidwell, D. (2013). The role of values in public beliefs and attitudes towards commercial wind
energy. Energy Policy, 58, 189–199.
Bigerna, S., & Polinori, P. (2014). Italian households’ willingness to pay for green electricity.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 34, 110–121.
Bilharz, M., Fricke, V., Schrader, U., et al. (2011). Wider die Bagatellisierung der
Konsumentenverantwortung. GAIA, 20, 9–13.
Birzle-Harder, B., & G€otz, K. (2001). Gr€ uner Strom—eine sozialwissenschaftliche Marktanalyse.
Frankfurt a. M.: Institut für sozial-€okologische Forschung.
Boardman, B., Jardine, C., Lipp, J., et al. (2006). Green electricity code of practice: A scoping
study. Oxford: Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford.
Borchers, A. M., Duke, J. M., Parsons, G. R., et al. (2007). Does willingness to pay for green
energy differ by source. Energy Policy, 35, 3327–3334.
Brooks, A. C. (2000). Public subsidies and charitable giving: Crowding-out or crowding-in, or
both? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19, 451–464.
Burkhalter, A., Kaenzig, J., Wüstenhagen, R., et al. (2009). Kundenpräferenzen für
leistungsrelevante Attribute von Stromprodukten. Zeitschrift f€ ur Energiewirtschaft, 33(2),
161–172.
Butler, L., & Neuhoff, K. (2008). Comparison of feed-in tariff, quota and auction mechanisms to
support wind power development. Renewable Energy, 33(8), 1854–1867.
Christ, S., & Bothe, D. (2007). Bestimmung der Zahlungsbereitschaft f€ ur erneuerbare Energien
mit Hilfe der Kontingenten Bewertungsmethode. (EWI Working Paper Nr. 07/1). Cologne:
EWI.
Croson, R. T. A. (2007). Theories of commitment, altruism and reciprocity: Evidence from linear
public goods games. Economic Inquiries, 45, 199–216.
Crumpler, H., & Grossman, P. J. (2008). An experimental test of warm glow giving. Journal of
Public Economics, 92, 1011–1021.
Cummings, R. G., Brookshire, D. S., Schulze, W. D., et al. (1986). Valuing environmental goods:
An assessment of the contingent valuation method. Totowa: Rowman & Allanheld.
Dear, M. (1992). Understanding and overcoming the nimby-syndrome. Journal of the American
Planning Association, 58(3), 288–300.
Degenhardt, S., & Gronemann, S. (1998). Die Zahlungsbereitschaft von Urlaubsg€ asten f€
ur den
Naturschutz: Theorie und Empirie des Embedding-Effektes. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang.
Deutsche Energie-Agentur GmbH (dena). (2012). Verkehr. Energie. Klima. Berlin: trigger.
medien.gmbh.
Eisenführ, F., & Weber, M. (2003). Rationales Entscheiden (4th ed.). Berlin: Springer.
Esaiasson, P. (2014). NIMBYism—A re-examination of the phenomenon. Social Science
Research, 48, 185–195.
Falk, A., & Kosfeld, M. (2003). The hidden cost of control. American Economic Review, 96,
1611–1630.
Forsa Gesellschaft für Sozialforschung und statistische Analysen mBH (forsa). (2011). Erwartungen
€
der Verbraucher an Okostrom und Konsequenzen f€ €
ur Okostrom-Labelkriterien. Berlin: Forsa.
Frey, B. S. (1997). Not just for the money: An economic theory of personal motivation.
Cheltenham-Brookfield: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Frey, B. S., & Jegen, R. (2001). Motivation crowding theory. Journal of Economic Surveys, 15(5),
589–611.
Gabor, A., & Granger, C. W. J. (1966). Prices as an indicator of quality: Report on an enquiry.
Economica, 33(129), 43–70.
Gamble, A., Juliusson, E. A., Gärling, T., et al. (2009). Consumer attitudes towards switching
supplier in three deregulated markets. Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(5), 814–819.
Goeschl, T., & Perino, G. (2009). Combining Taxes and Moral Suasion for Resolving the Energy-
Climate Nexus: Experimental Evidence of a Conflict (Working Paper). University of
Heidelberg.
Goett, A. E., Hudson, K., Train, K. E., et al. (2000). Customers’ choice among retail energy
suppliers: The willingness-to-pay for service attributes. The Energy Journal, 21(4), 1–28.
Grieger & Cie Marktforschung. (2013). Energieversorgung in Deutschland nach Fukushima.
Accessed June 27, 2016, from https://www.grieger-cie.de/Marktforschung/Umfrage-
Kernenergieausstieg-2011.pdf.
Gr€osche, P., & Schr€oder, C. (2011). Eliciting public support for greening the electricity mix using
random parameter techniques. Energy Economics, 33(2), 363–370.
Grunwald, M. (2010). Wider die Privatisierung der Nachhaltigkeit—Warum € okologisch korrekter
Konsum die Umwelt nicht retten kann. GAIA, 19(3), 178–182.
Guo, X., Liu, H., Mao, X., Jin, J., Chen, D., Cheng, S., et al. (2014). Willigness to pay for renewable
electricity: A contingent valuation study in Beijing, China. Energy Policy, 68, 340–347.
Hackbarth, A., & Madlener, R. (2013). Consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles: A
discrete choice analysis. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 25, 5–17.
€
Hasanov, I. (2010). Konsumentenverhalten bei Okostromangeboten. Empirische Untersuchungen
privater Stromkunden in Deutschland. Essen: Duisburg.
Henry, O., Volschenk, J., Smit, E., et al. (2011). Residential consumers in the Cape Peninsula’s
willingness to pay for premium priced green electricity. Energy Policy, 39, 544–550.
Hidrue, M. K., Parsons, G. R., Kempton, W., Gardner, M. P., et al. (2011). Willingness to pay for
electric vehicles and their attributes. Resource and Energy Economics, 33(3), 686–705.
Homann, K. (1994). Wirtschaftsethik in der Moderne: Zur €okonomischen Theorie der Moral. Ethik
und Sozialwissenschaften, 5, 3–12.
Hübner, G., Müller, M., R€ohr, U., et al. (2012). Erneuerbare Energien und Ökostrom—
Zielgruppenspezifische Kommunikationsstrategien. Abschlussbericht zum BMU-Verbundprojekt
(FKZ: 0325107/8).
Hüttner, M., von Ahsen, A., Schwarting, U., et al. (1999). Marketing-management (2nd ed.).
Munich: Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag.
International Energy Agency. (2014). IEA Policy & Measures Database. Accessed June 26, 2016,
from http://www.iea.org/policiesandmeasures.
Jami, A. A. N., & Walsh, P. R. (2014). The role of public participation in identifying stakeholder
synergies in wind power project development: The case study of Ontario, Canada. Renewable
Energy, 68, 194–202.
Jenner, S., Groba, F., Indvik, J., et al. (2013). Assessing the strength and effectiveness of
renewable electricity feed-in tariffs in European Union countries. Energy Policy, 52, 385–401.
Jensen, A. F., Cherchi, E., Mabit, S. L., et al. (2013). On the stability of preferences and attitudes
before and after experiencing an electric vehicle. Transportation Research Part D: Transport
and Environment, 25, 24–31.
Jones, C. R., & Eiser, J. R. (2010). Understanding ‘local’ opposition to wind development in the
UK: How big is a backyard? Energy Policy, 38, 3106–3117.
Kaenzig, J., Heinzle, S. L., Wüstenhagen, R., et al. (2013). Whatever the customer wants, the
customer gets? Exploring the gap between consumer preferences and default electricity
products in Germany. Energy Policy, 53, 311–322.
Kalish, S., & Nelson, P. (1991). A comparison of ranking, rating and reservation price measure-
ment in conjoint analysis. Marketing Letters, 2(4), 327–335.
Kahneman, D., & Knetsch, J. L. (1992). Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction.
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22(1), 57–70.
Kirchgässner, F., & Schneider, F. (2003). On the political economy of environmental policy.
Public Choice, 115, 369–396.
Kontogianni, A., Tourkolias, C., Skourtos, M., Damigos, D., et al. (2014). Planning gobally,
protesting locally: Patterns in community perceptions towards the installation of wind farms.
Renewable Energy, 66, 170–177.
Lell, O. (2012). Klimaschutz aus Verbrauchersicht. Wirtschaftsdienst, 92, 37–41.
Lo, K. (2013). Interested but unsure: Public attitudes toward electric vehicles in China. Electronic
Green Journal, 1(36), 1–13.
Lüttringhaus, M., & Richers, H. (2003). Handbuch Aktivierende Befragung—Konzepte,
Erfahrungen, Tipps f€ ur die Praxis (2nd ed.). Bonn: Stiftung Mitarbeit.
Matiaske, W., & Weller, I. (2006). Kann weniger mehr sein? Theoretische Überlegungen und
empirische Befunde zur These der Verdrängung intrinsischer Motivation durch extrinsische
Anreize. In R. Rapp, P. Sedlmeier, G. Zunker-Rapp, et al. (Eds.), Perspectives on cognition
(pp. 113–132). Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers.
Mattes, A. (2012). Potentiale f€ €
ur Okostrom in Deutschland. Verbraucherpr€ aferenzen und
Investitionsverhalten der EVU. Berlin: DIW Econ.
Meier, S. (2007). Do subsidies increase charitable giving in the long-run? Matching donations in
field experiment. Journal of the European Economic Association, 5(6), 1203–1222.
Menges, R., & Beyer, G. (2014). Underground cables versus overhead lines: Do cables increase
social acceptance of grid development? Results of a contingent valuation survey in Germany.
International Journal of Sustainable Energy Planning and Management, 3, 33–48.
Menges, R., & Traub, S. (2009). Who should pay the bill for promoting green electricity? An
experimental study on consumer preferences. International Journal of Environment and
Pollution, 39, 44–60.
Menges, R., Schr€ oder, C., Traub, S., et al. (2004a). Umweltbewusstes Konsumentenverhalten aus
€
okonomischer Sicht: Eine experimentelle Untersuchung der Zahlungsbereitschaft für
Ökostrom. Umweltpsychologie, 8(1), 84–106.
Menges, R., Schr€ oder, C., Traub, S., et al. (2004b). Erhebung von Zahlungsbereitschaften für
Ökostrom—Methodische Aspekte und Ergebnisse einer experimentellen Untersuchung. Mar-
keting ZFP, 26(3), 247–258.
Menges, R., Schr€ oder, C., Traub, S., et al. (2005). Altruism, warm glow and the willingness-to-
donate for green electricity: An artefactual field experiment. Environmental and Resource
Economics, 31(4), 431–458.
Meyerhoff, J. (2001). Nicht-nutzungsabhängige Wertschätzungen und ihre Aufnahme in die
Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse. Zeitschrift f€ ur Umweltpolitik, 24(3), 393–416.
Mozumder, P., Vásquez, W. F., Marathe, A., et al. (2011). Consumers’ preference for renewable
energy in the southwest USA. Energy Economics, 33(6), 1119–1126.
Müller-Friemauth, F. (2009). Setzen Konsumenten von grünem Strom nur auf Nachhaltigkeit oder
auch auf andere Marktverhältnisse? Elektrizit€ atswirtschaft, 108, 34–35.
Ockenfels, A. (1999). Fairneß, Reziprozit€ €
at und Eigennutz—Okonomische Theorie und
experimentelle Evidenz. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Pol, E., Di Masso, A., Castrechini, A., Bonet, M. R., Vidal, T., et al. (2006). Psychological
parameters to understand and manage the NIMBY effect. Revue européenne de psychologie
appliquée, 56, 43–51.
Pindyck, R., & Rubinfeld, D. (2009). Mikro€ okonomie (7th ed.). Munich: Addison-Wesley Verlag.
Praktiknjo, A. J. (2014). Stated preferences based estimation of power interruption costs in private
households: An example from Germany. Energy, 76, 82–90. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2014.03.
089.
€
Reichmuth, M. (2014). Marktanalyse Okostrom. Dessau-Roßlau: Umweltbundesamt.
Roe, B., Boyle, K. J., Teisl, M. F., et al. (1996). Using conjoint analysis to derive estimations of
compensating variation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 31(2),
145–159.
Roe, B., Teisl, M. F., Levy, A., Russell, M., et al. (2001). US consumers’ willingness to pay for
green electricity. Energy Policy, 29(11), 917–925.
Rondeau, D., Schulze, W. D., Poe, G. L., et al. (1999). Voluntary revelation of the demand for
public goods using a provision point mechanism. Journal of Public Economics, 72(3),
455–470.
Rowlands, I., Scott, D., Parker, P., et al. (2003). Consumers and green electricity: Profiling
potential purchasers. Business Strategy and the Environment, 12(1), 36–48.
Rundle-Thiele, S., Paladion, A., Apostol, S. A. G., et al. (2008). Lessons learned from renewable
electricity marketing attempts: A case study. Business Horizons, 51, 181–190.
Scarpy, R., & Willis, K. (2010). Willingness-to-pay for renewable energy: Primary and discre-
tionary choice of British households’ for micro-generation technologies. Energy Economics,
32, 129–136.
Seung-Hoon, Y., & So-Yoon, K. (2009). Willingness to pay for green electricity in Korea: A
contingent valuation study. Energy Policy, 38, 5408–5416.
Skiera, B., & Revenstorff, I. (1999). Auktionen als Instrument zur Erhebung von
Zahlungsbereitschaften. Zeitschrift f€ ur betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 51(3), 224–242.
Smith, V. L. (1982). Microeconomic systems as an experimental science. American Economic
Review, 72(5), 923–955.
Soroudi, A., & Amraee, T. (2013). Decision making under uncertainty in energy systems: State of
the art. Renewable and Sustainably Energy Reviews, 28, 376–384.
Stübinger, E. (2005). Ethik der Energienutzung—Zeit€ okologische und theologische Perspektiven.
Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
€
Suchanek, A. (2007). Okonomische Ethik. Stuttgart: UTB.
Sundt, S., & Rehdanz, K. (2015). Consumers’ willingness to pay for green electricity: A meta-
analysis of the literature. Energy Economics, 51, 1–8.
Sunderer, G. (2006). Was h€ €
alt Verbraucher vom Wechsel zu Okostrom ab? Trier: Universität Trier.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. The Journal of
Business, 59(4), 251–278.
Van der Horst, D. (2007). Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in
renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy, 35, 2705–2714.
Vickrey, W. (1961). Counter speculation, auctions and competitive sealed tenders. Journal of
Finance, 16(1), 8–37.
Weiber, R., & Rosendahl, T. (1997). Anwendung der Conjoint-Analyse—Die Eignung
conjointanalytischer Untersuchungsansätze zur Abbildung realer Entscheidungsprozesse.
Marketing ZFP, 19(2), 107–118.
Weimann, J. (2009). Wirtschaftspolitik—Allokation und kollektive Entscheidung (5th ed.). Berlin:
Springer.
von Weizsäcker, C. C. (2015). Adaptive Präferenzen und die Legitimierung dezentraler
Entscheidungsstrukturen. In T. Apolte, M. Leschke, A. F. Michler, C. Müller, R. Schomaker,
& D. Wentzel (Eds.), Behavioral Economics und Wirtschaftspolitik, Schriften zu

Ordnungsfragen der Wirtschaft (pp. 67–98). Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius.
Wiser, R. H. (1998). Green power marketing: Increasing customer demand for renewable energy.
Utilities Policy, 7(2), 107–119.
Winther, T., & Ericson, T. (2012). Matching policy and people? Household response to the
promotion of renewable electricity. Energy Efficiency, 6(2), 369–385.
Wolsink, M. (2012). Undesired reinforcement of harmful ‘self-evident truths’ concerning the
implementation of wind power. Energy Policy, 48, 83–87.
Wortmann, K., Klitzke, M., L€orx, S., Menges, R., et al. (1996). Gr€ uner Tarif. Klimaschutz durch
freiwillige Beitr€
age zum Stromtarif. Kiel: Energiestiftung Schleswig-Holstein.
Wricke, M., & Herrmann, A. (2002). Ansätze zur Erfassung der individuellen
Zahlungsbereitschaft. Wirtschaftswissenschaftliches Studium, 31(10), 573–578.
Yang, Y. (2014). Understanding household switching behavior in the retail electricity market.
Energy Policy, 69, 406–414.
Ziegler, A. (2012). Individual characteristics and stated preferences for alternative energy sources
and propulsion technologies in vehicles: A discrete choice analysis for Germany. Transporta-
tion Research Part A, 46, 1372–1385.
Zorić, J., & Hrovatin, N. (2012). Household willingness to pay for green electricity in Slovenia.
Energy Policy, 47, 180–187.
Roland Menges studied economics at the University of

Kiel, where he also acquired his PhD in 1996 with a thesis
in public finance, based on research in the field of experi-
mental economics. Afterwards he worked for various
research institutions in the field of energy and environmen-
tal policy. In 2006 he finished his post-doctoral lecturer
qualification at the University of Flensburg. Since 2010 he
is a full professor at the University of Technology Clausthal.
His research fields are environmental and experimental
economics.
Gregor Beyer holds a master’s degree in business admin-

istration. He is a research assistant and PhD-student at the
department of macroeconomics at Clausthal University of
Technology, Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany. His research
interest lies in consumer preferences for renewable energies
and behavioural economics. In his PhD-thesis and in his
recent research he evaluated energy efficiency policies and
examines their behavioral effects.
Direct Selling of Renewable Energy
Products
Christian Friege
Abstract
For the distribution of renewable energy (RE) products (e.g., green power, heat
from RE) direct selling is a very suitable strategy, especially as an element of
multichannel distribution. Both product criteria (necessity of explanation, emo-
tionality) and the business model (viability for sales commissions, win–win–win
constellation) play a role in the choice of distribution model. Door-to-door
selling, a very common classic sales technique, will be applied here—with
good reason. The argument is supported by an example (green power) to
illustrate how this can be implemented in practice.
Keywords
Direct selling • Direct sales • Multichannel distribution • Sales concept •
Renewable energy
1 Problem
In a representative survey, TNS Infratest and the German Direct Selling Associa-
tion (Bundesverband Direktvertrieb Deutschland, or BDD) recently identified that
in the future consumers will be expected to buy more online but also in direct sales
(BDD 2012). Such developments as anticipated by consumers suggest two
implications for the commercialization of renewable energy (RE) products, which
C. Friege (*)
Stuttgart, Germany
e-mail: cf@friege-consulting.de

76 C. Friege
usually are not offered in retail outlets. First, established direct sales of RE products
will be further expanded. This is evident from a first look at the market in Germany,
where for example the eco-energy provider Lichtblick labels its direct sales as a
“key distribution channel” (Lichtblick 2009) and a number of other energy
providers use direct selling for the distribution of green (and gray) power. Second,
multichannel distribution strategies are becoming increasingly important, espe-
cially when online sales are combined with a form of personal selling. A good
example of these multichannel strategies is the distribution of photovoltaic
(PV) systems on a lease basis (Friege and Dharshing 2015).
Direct selling may have the potential to support marketing of RE products.
Whether that is indeed the case, this paper will aim to answer the questions of
what requirements must be met in detail and how direct sales of RE can support
marketing. There will be an overview about basic concepts of direct selling and its
incorporation into multichannel distribution strategies (Sect. 2), a detailed descrip-
tion, how RE products match the requirements for successful direct selling (Sect.
3), an example of RE marketing through direct sales (Sect. 4), and a perspective on
future development (Sect. 5).
2 Basics of Direct Selling
2.1 Definition of Direct Selling
“Direct Selling is face-to-face selling away from a fixed retail location” (Peterson and
Wotruba 1996, p. 2). Its key characteristics are therefore (1) direct and personal
interaction between sales representative and customer (2) outside of a permanent
sales outlet, for example, in a home, on the doorstep, or at a fair. Direct sales need to
be distinguished from direct marketing. Direct marketing is “distance selling”: direct,
personal customer contact does not occur. Instead, direct marketing makes use of
online stores, telemarketing, catalogs, direct response advertising, or e-mails, among
others, to attract customers and to motivate them to make a purchase. Compared with
direct marketing, the individual customer contact in direct sales is relatively expen-
sive, despite the fact that mostly independent salespeople are involved.
It follows that direct sales tends to be a promising sales channel
– if the products to be distributed have a relatively high single value (e.g.,

Vorwerk1 vacuum cleaners),
1
The German company Vorwerk is a pioneer in direct selling. “Vorwerk’s core business is the
worldwide direct selling of high-quality products.. . .When Vorwerk invented the Kobold hand-
held vacuum cleaner in 1929, it was a technical sensation.. . .Thanks to (direct) selling, the Kobold
was soon a roaring success in Germany—so much so, in fact, that by 1936, Vorwerk was ready to
set up its first international subsidiary: Vorwerk Folletto in Italy. Today, the turnover generated
outside Germany was 66 percent, in direct sales it was even as much as 79 percent” (Vorwerk
2016).
Direct Selling of Renewable Energy Products 77
– if there is a specific need for explanation (e.g., advantages and features of

Tupperware), or
– if the product and its features can be particularly well tried out in a familiar
environment (e.g., cosmetics products by Avon or Mary Kay).
RE products have two of these three characteristics. There is often a relatively

high single value (e.g., PV systems). In addition, the products require specific
explanations, both about the products themselves and about the extent to which
the purchase is relevant for a reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere. Clearly, during
the first few years following the liberalization of the energy markets, this need for
explanation triggered a direct sales approach for German green energy pioneer
Lichtblick.2 The lack of opportunity to try out RE products before purchasing can
often be overcome through adequate marketing material.
In direct sales, three forms of distribution can be distinguished (Engelhardt and
Jaeger 1998, p. 19ff.):
1. Doorstep selling, in which either single-stage (cold) doorstep selling is used

without prior notification (e.g., Vorwerk vacuum cleaners) or two-stage doorstep
selling, in which appointments are made prior to the visit at the door, mostly by
telephone (e.g., wine sales). Sometimes, sales agents also use pop-up stands in
malls or other public places or exhibit at consumer fairs;
2. Home service, in which goods are delivered out of a car with a prior reservation
or spontaneously (like Eismann or Bofrost3); and
3. Home demonstration (often called a party plan), in which a host gives the sales
representative the opportunity to present the goods to a group of friends/
acquaintances (e.g., Tupperware Party).
In all cases it must be ensured that a sufficient number of potential customers is

geographically within reach in a reasonable time and at reasonable cost for most
independent sales representatives.
For the distribution of RE products, home service obviously has no relevance.
This does not necessarily apply to the party plan. However, while these have been
tried from time to time with so-called electricity supplier change parties, the success
of the method was generally so inadequate that a professional organization has
never seriously approached this concept of direct selling in Germany. Important
factors for successful home demonstrations, like entertainment value and fun factor,
a presentation of different products that allows prospective buyers to try out
products, and the likely request of at least one participant to do this “party” with
a circle of his/her friends (sales lead), have so far for energy sales not been
2
LichtBlick was a pioneer in the market in 1998 and today is Germany’s largest independent green
energy retailer (Lichtblick 2016).
3
Bofrost and Eismann have been leading the German market for direct distribution of frozen food
to the home for decades. Both are also active in other European countries.
78 C. Friege
established. For RE sales, there are few variations (e.g., green electricity, green gas,
PV), no real “try-out,” and lots of technical and factual information instead, with
hardly any opportunity for games and entertainment. It remains to be seen whether
there will be room for a party plan with new, innovative RE products in the future.
Classic doorstep selling clearly belongs in the repertoire of many energy
providers. Not only Lichtblick but also other green electricity providers in Germany
are selling their product using this distribution strategy: Naturstrom, Stadtwerke
Iserlohn (Elementerra 2006), and Stadtwerke Stuttgart, among others, use the
potential of direct sales exclusively for green electricity. Many other utilities also
sell their green products in parallel with the fossil (gray) energy product, often using
the same sales team.
Each of the three forms of direct selling focus simultaneously on selling the
product, gathering leads to achieve more product sales, and attracting new sales-
people. The result is a high growth potential through this sales channel, which can
be implemented over several levels (multilevel4) relatively quickly and with rela-
tively low investment and risk. This high growth potential with low risk is usually
paired with above-average acquisition costs for each new customer, or cost per
order (CPO). In addition, the sales team can be increased quickly, but at the same
time it also tends to be rather unstable, as the sales representatives are independent
and often only work part-time. It should be noted that the entire business model is
not geared to the usual “win–win” constellation for supplier and customer but needs
a “win–win–win” constellation, where in addition to supplier and customer the
independent salespeople also need to show a profit. An additional challenge is the
delicate balance that needs to be struck. On the one hand, the recruitment of
additional partners through multiple levels of distribution as a driver of growth
needs to be incentivized while on the other hand, the active distribution of the actual
product needs to remain the primary objective in gaining sales. Creating an illegal
so-called pyramid scheme should be avoided. The self-imposed standards of the
German Direct Selling Association (BDD), which are revised regularly (BDD
2013) have proven very successful here as a guideline.
Finally, five tools essential to managing direct sales need to be introduced
(Friege et al. 2013 p. 226f.; Friege 2016):
1. The sales concept fully describes what sales arguments and selling aids for what
products will be used. Enforcing this concept is the precondition of successfully
managing the sales organization, especially when new products or sales
arguments are introduced.
2. The remuneration system is crucial to controlling the activities of the indepen-
dent sales force. It needs to be designed so as to optimize product sales, partner
recruitment, and building new leads. If, for example, the recruitment of new
partners is financially more attractive than the product sale, the partners will
focus primarily on the former. However, note that, especially for resellers who
4
Often also referred to as multilevel marketing (MLM).
work part-time, social interaction with other members of a distribution unit is

also of significant value for their motivation.
3. Training is crucial for the implementation of the sales strategy; additionally, the
often complex remuneration system must be explained since both need to be
effectively implemented.
4. Controlling both financial indicators and sales metrics is important for
identifying opportunities to improve sales and sales team recruitment.
5. It is becoming increasingly important to integrate a CRM system into the sales
process, if only because the client relationship should not exist solely with the
sales partners and must be maintained even when the sales partner is inactive.
The BDD sees the 12 % growth of the industry in 2015 as a clear indicator of the
viability of direct sales as a distribution channel (BDD 2016). The same applies to
prospects worldwide, as the World Federation of Direct Selling Associations
(WFDSA) reports in its 2016 annual report: in the period 2012–2015, the compound
annual growth rate was þ10.6 % in Asia Pacific, þ4.8 % in the Americas, and
þ4.3 % in Europe —all well above inflation rates (WFDSA, 2016).
2.2 Direct Selling as an Element of Multichannel Strategies
Research conducted at the University of Mannheim (2014) shows that already 45 %

of direct sales companies surveyed in Germany run some online business, and at
least 22 % operate a flagship store. Hence, it can be assumed that multichannel
distribution is important for direct sales companies. However, the specific
challenges that this entails are not discussed in the literature. Risks and
opportunities to pursue a multichannel distribution strategy in general (Fig. 1),
however, are frequently a topic of discourse in business journals.
Strategically, a multichannel approach provides a company with the opportunity
to achieve greater market coverage (Zhang et al. 2010; Sch€ogel and Binder 2011).
At the same time, there is the risk of underperforming in these additional channels
compared to companies that are exclusively active there, the so-called pure plays
(Sch€ogel and Binder 2011, p. 184). For example, none of the online shops of bricks-
and-mortar booksellers could ever really surpass the breadth of product (including
used books) and delivery choices offered by Amazon. Whether a multichannel
strategy in any case constitutes a competitive advantage is not clear, though there is
potential for an “enduring competitive advantage” (Neslin and Shankar 2009,
p. 73). This is particularly true if one considers the wide differentiation of purchas-
ing behavior that is increasingly observed: information gathering, consultation,
purchase decision, need for social interaction, communication with sellers—this
is taking place with increasing frequency in different channels and thus gives
companies operating several sales channels additional interactions and, thus, sales
opportunities. Zhang et al. (2010, p. 169f.) in particular see the following three
potentials in multichannel strategies: (1) access to new markets, which cannot be
achieved with existing distribution channels, (2) increase in customer loyalty, and
80 C. Friege
Opportunities Risik
• Increased market coverage • Channel conflict with Pure

Plays
Corporate • Sustainable competitive
Strategy advantage
• Cross channel standard

leads to suboptimal result in
each individual channel
Management • Loss of control
System (cooperations)
• Data integration
• Customer expectations • Confusion, where product-/

price-identity across
• Increased customer benefit
channels is lacking
through choice of channel
• Integrated customer
Cuatomer • Increased loyalty
analytics
Relationship
• Increased sales
• Risk balance • Cost increase from

„Prisoner’s Dilemma”
• Savings from complemen-
Profitability tary value chains
Fig. 1 Opportunities and risks of a multichannel strategy [based on Neslin and Shankar (2009),
Sch€
ogel and Binder (2011), Sch€ogel et al. (2011), and Zhang et al. (2010)]
(3) strategic benefits from building and expanding the customer database and all
related processes.
Multichannel strategies represent a challenge for management systems. First,
because a uniform offer across all channels is a major requirement in multichannel
distribution, this offer may end up being suboptimal in all channels (Sch€ogel and
Binder 2011, p. 184). Second, new channels are often operated together with
partners, which can lead to a loss of control in these channels (Sch€ogel and Binder,
2011). Finally, unified data management must be achieved across all channels,
particularly with respect to customer data generated in different channels (Zhang
et al. 2010, p. 172).
Regarding customer relationships, clearly a multichannel strategy—at least
insofar as it relates to the inclusion of comprehensive online and social media
coverage—is now expected by most customers. This is the case not only because
the choice between different channels represents a benefit for customers (e.g.,
Sch€ogel et al. 2011, p. 565f.). Significantly more important is that multichannel

strategies lead to greater customer loyalty and higher revenues (Neslin and Shankar
2009, p. 72, with references therein). Such opportunities are reduced if a consistent
experience across all channels cannot be offered (Sch€ogel and Binder 2011), which
in turn requires a seamless handover of customer data (Zhang et al. 2010).
All this should lead to higher profitability (e.g., Zhang et al. 2010). In addition to
the previously discussed effects from increased loyalty and sales to the individual
multichannel customer, benefits accrue from balancing risk across the different
channels (Sch€ ogel and Binder 2011) as well as cost reduction possibilities when the
value chains of the individual channels complement each other (Sch€ogel and Binder
2011, p. 183). However, profitability is ultimately determined by the degree to
which a company is forced by the competition’s actions into additional channels
and no sustainable competitive advantage could be established (Prisoner’s
Dilemma) (Neslin and Shankar 2009, p. 73).
In addition to the risks and benefits of a multichannel strategy in general as
summarized in Fig. 1, some special considerations should be taken into account
when using direct sales as a distribution channel. These apply both to established
direct sales companies expanding into other channels and to companies actively
running other distribution channels adding direct sales (Fig. 2). Establishing direct
sales as an element of a multichannel strategy is very possible, but it requires skill
and experience. It is especially important to apply the tools described in Sect. 2.1
(Definition of Direct Selling) in an optimal way. However, this also means that
there will be limited competition—a unique position seems more attainable. For
example, only a few of the more than 1100 energy distributors in Germany have
imitated the doorstep sales model, which Lichtblick was so successful with. At the
same time, virtually all sales organizations have an online presence.
Opportunities Risik
• Sustainable competitive • Limited to products suitable

advantage seems achievable for direct selling
Direct Selling
• Active sales channel, where • Limited power of direction
the amount of business can be over sales agents
controlled without
• Traditionally single channel
dependency on distribution
distribution
partners
• Perceived cannibalization
(Sharma/Gassenheimer 2009)
• Exclusivity of offer in direct
sales versus price-/product-
identity in multi-channel
distribution
Fig. 2 Opportunities and risks of direct sales in a multichannel strategy

82 C. Friege
In addition, direct sales represents an active sales channel, where the amount of
business can be controlled almost entirely. There is no dependency on advertising
response, brand recognition (though that helps), or distribution partners; direct sales
is a so-called push channel, which actively seeks out potential customers, and not a
pull-channel, where the customer must be activated (e.g., through a Website). It can
be expanded by adding additional sales representatives or an increased margin for
the existing organization and will respond immediately. Therefore, direct sales is
likely to compensate for a loss of control in other channels in the context of a
multichannel strategy.
Nonetheless, direct selling is suitable only for certain products, especially those
that need to be explained in a special way, have a certain monetary value (either as a
single purchase or with recurring purchases as in electricity sales), and ideally can
be tried out at home.
But above all, “perceived cannibalization” (Sharma and Gassenheimer 2009,
p. 1076) is a risk encountered when establishing multichannel strategies with direct
sales. Since the income of the sales force in direct sales depends entirely or largely
on personal sales results, the salespeople regard it as a significant problem if the
product can be purchased in a different channel and not exclusively from them as a
result of the relationship they established with the customer. This concern is
compounded by the traditional culture of direct sales as “single-channel distribu-
tion” (Friege et al. 2013, p. 227). Not only does the company then lack disciplinary
means for independent distribution partners, but the sales representatives can walk
away from the company on the spot. Hence, perceived cannibalization is a chal-
lenge in the deployment of a multichannel strategy encompassing direct sales.
Finally, exclusivity (“I can offer this product to you exclusively here and now
and it is not available elsewhere”) is an important argument for the conclusion of a
sale in direct selling, which contradicts the principle of offer and price identity
between channels. However, this risk can be countered through variations of the
product (e.g., pack size, additional features, bundling, daily rate) in favor of the
customer without significant impact on CPO.
In summary, a competitive multichannel offer including distribution through
direct sales is an option that is likely to generate competitive advantages.
3 Direct Sales of Renewable Energy Products
3.1 Special Features of Direct Sales of RE Products
Why do customers choose RE products? The answer to this question contains

information from a customer perspective on important aspects for the direct selling
of RE products. Central to the motives of many customers, given economic viabil-
ity, is a desire to contribute to a sustainable energy policy, to avoid CO2, and to
maintain a more sustainable lifestyle in general [e.g., overview in Herbes and
Ramme (2014), p. 258ff., or regarding a willingness to pay for green energy, Herbes
et al. (2015)]. Therefore, other than with conventional direct selling of products, in
addition to product features, explanation of the environmental benefits for the

customer plays a crucial role in the buying decision: The RE product is doubly in
need of explanation and thus is particularly suitable for direct sales.
These characteristics of RE products need to be considered for direct sales (see
also Friege and Herbes 2017):
1. The appropriate RE product requires a double explanation. In addition to the

environmental value (see previous discussion), its basic properties must be
explained and opportunities for questions must be allowed (for example, about
a connection to a district heating network or a PV rooftop system), or the product
can even be discussed (advice to save energy provided by the salesperson of a
local green electricity supplier): There needs to be an added value from the
selling process.
2. In addition, especially with RE products, often conspicuous consumption can be
observed (e.g., Herbes and Ramme, 2014, p. 260), which can easily be supported
in direct sales with appropriate information, such as by comparing CO2 savings
of the RE product with the equivalent car emissions.
3. The lack of a live demonstration of RE products can be compensated by
appropriate sales aids (for example, looking at live data of an existing PV system
through an app that is included with the offered PV solution).
4. Energy products are low-involvement products. Usually, consumers are hardly
involved with supplier selection and the products are generally perceived as
completely divorced from emotions. This is very different for typical direct
selling products: cosmetics, wine, and lingerie, for example, are highly emo-
tional and, hence, high-involvement products, and even the selection of a
vacuum cleaner or a set of cooking pots will allow for more emotional involve-
ment than electricity and heat or their production. But this lack of involvement
can also be seen as an opportunity for direct sales. As a consequence, it is even
more difficult to approach potential customers through direct marketing or
advertising and other channels, and more often than not the results of such
advertising campaigns are well below breakeven.
5. To a large extent, RE products are credence goods. Customers cannot try out
green electricity before contracting, nor are they able to even notice after their
purchase, using some sort of indicator, whether green energy is actually being
delivered. The same applies to some extent to connections to district heating
networks for the operation of “combined heat and power” plants or PV systems.
Although you can check the heat in the house, it cannot be proven whether in fact
a renewable source of biomethane is driving the cogeneration plant, whether
only sustainably generated heat is being fed into the network, or whether the PV
modules will work for 20 years. All this can be found out by the customer only
with great difficulty, and some may find out very late or not at all. Against this
background, the direct sales of RE products must—unlike with usual direct
sales, where the product can be demonstrated and tested—develop indicators
that generate and strengthen trust and credibility.
84 C. Friege
6. RE products will always require some form of multichannel distribution to

facilitate the necessary explanations of technical details, ecological advantages,
and determination of customer needs (including technical data) in detail. All this
requires a comprehensive Internet presence in addition to personal explanations
by the salesperson. It will also be advisable to not only rely on the consumer to
collect the necessary data to calculate a detailed offer, but also check some of the
data supplied in person as part of the sales process. Finally, this multichannel
presence also makes it possible to address different customer groups in different
stages of the purchasing process, for which—as a result of buying habits or
geographic coverage—a single sales channel alone is insufficient.
3.2 Checklist for the Successful Direct Sales of RE Products
Ultimately and as a kind of summary of the argument made so far, the fundamental
suitability of an RE product for direct sales can be determined on the basis of ten
criteria (Table 1).
The way an existing RE product (green power) can be distributed using a
multichannel strategy, including direct sales, is presented in the following section.
4 Green Electricity in Direct Sales
When applying the checklist shown in Table 1 to a common green electricity

product that is to be sold in direct sales, a product solution might look like that
outlined in Table 2.
While electricity per se does not have to be explained, it may be a “door opener”
to offer—consistent with the sustainable positioning of the product—individual
advice to save electricity (criterion 1). This conveys competence, provides the good
feeling of profiting regardless of the purchasing decision, and gives potential
customers free and useful information without making them feel pressured to
buy. Greatly in need of explanation are the environmental benefits of the offer
(criterion 2). Many companies in Germany use the image of the “power lake” here,
where both green and fossil/gray electricity are injected. The more people order
green energy, the more green energy will be fed into the lake and the greener it will
become overall. To explain this and other features, some charts and diagrams
should be used as sales aids, especially since green energy is not a product for
which the unique selling proposition can be demonstrated or that the prospective
customer can try out during a presentation, as is the case with many other products
sold in direct sales (criterion 4). The complexity of the product is both the challenge
for the sales person and the reason why it can be sold successfully in direct sales.
Thus, it becomes crucial to emotionalize the product (criterion 7), which can be
achieved by, for example, connecting the environmental benefits to the prospective
buyer (“What planet do you want to leave to the next generation?”) or by telling
stories (true) and (recognizable as such) fairytales (too good to be true). Finally, the
Table 1 Checklist for successful distribution of RE products

Criteria √
1. RE product in itself requires explanation
2. Ecological benefits of RE product requires explanation
3. Pricing of RE product (once or as an ongoing obligation) allows for appropriate
commission payment
4. Lack of live demonstration can be compensated by sales aids
5. Distribution can be organized as a traditional (doorstep) sale through sales
representatives
6. Geographic distribution of potential customers allows for people-based distribution
7. RE product can evoke strong emotional reactions
8. Perceived risk of credence good can be minimized
9. Business model supports win–win–win constellation
10. Direct sales of RE products can be integrated into multichannel distribution
Table 2 Checklist for green electricity in direct sales

Criteria Green electricity product
1 RE product in itself requires explanation Electricity does not need to be √
explained—yet; saving energy is a good
door opener
2 Ecological benefits of RE product Using simple imagery like the “lake” √
requires explanation helps explain the physical basics of
green electricity
3 Pricing of RE product (once or as an Customer value allows for commission √
ongoing obligation) allows for
appropriate commission payment
4 Lack of live demonstration can be Charts and diagrams to support points √
compensated by sales aids 1 and 2
5 Distribution can be organized as a Doorstep selling (single-stage/two- √
traditional (doorstep) sale through sales stage)
representative
6 Geographic distribution of potential Yes √
customers allows for people-based
distribution
7 RE product can evoke strong emotional Not so much the product itself, but very √
reactions much so the environmental value
8 Perceived risk of credence good can be Certificates, guarantees, brand, and √
minimized reputation of seller
9 Business model supports win–win–win Yes √
constellation
10 Direct sales of RE products can be Yes, direct selling, Internet, and other √
integrated into multichannel distribution distribution channels complement each
other to differentiate the commodity
“electricity”
86 C. Friege
risk associated with the purchase of credence goods must be minimized (criterion
8), which for green electricity is possible through
1. certificates, awarded by independent bodies, to attest the origin of the electricity;

2. labels, developed by the seller and not by an independent agency, to signal the
quality of the product (e.g., an emblem “Genuine Green Electricity” attached to
the sales material or displayed on a company Website, for example);
3. guarantees issued by the provider or a third party;
4. the positioning and brand of a seller that enjoys such a superior reputation that
further certificates or guarantees are unnecessary. This is the strongest possible
endorsement for a credence good, and the four established green electricity
providers in Germany (EWS Sch€onau, Greenpeace Energy, Naturstrom, and
Lichtblick), which have by and large an excellent reputation in the market,
seem to be moving in this direction.
Direct selling of green electricity allows for a business model that has proven
viable for a number of suppliers. The customer value is higher than the CPO
(criterion 3), and a win–win–win constellation can be established (criterion 9),
assuming that a sales agent is active during the whole month in order to achieve an
income of more than € 2,000. Direct selling of green energy is always organized as
a classic doorstep sale. The density of potential customers, especially in urban
areas, will likely even make it possible to organize distribution without providing
cars for the sales organization (criteria 5 and 6).
Finally, suppliers of green electricity usually operate Websites, other means of
online marketing, and often further distribution channels and thus run a multichan-
nel distribution. This multichannel distribution also contributes to the differentia-
tion of green electricity from other commodities offered on the market (Friege and
Herbes, 2017). For product/price combinations that are offered exclusively in direct
sales, the requirement of product identity and price identity between channels can
be partially neglected. Since offers exclusive to direct sales are not transparent to
other customer groups, selling, for example, an exclusive bundle (e.g., adding some
sort of insurance policy) or offering additional benefits (e.g., no base fee for the first
three months) will not harm the multichannel strategy and will at the same time
support the direct sales channel.
5 Summary and Outlook
It turns out that direct sales is a viable distribution channel for RE products,
particularly in the context of multichannel marketing strategies. For successful
implementation, however, the product and the marketing must meet certain
requirements, as discussed in detail in this chapter. Generally speaking, it can be
assumed that the importance of direct sales for the marketing of RE products will
continue to increase in the future:
1. Where the development of RE markets moves out of the niche of experts and
early adopters—and that obviously happens with deeper penetration of these
markets—further growth will require more explanations of the ecological added
value. This is a core focus of direct sales.
2. Many energy suppliers are currently developing strategies to introduce more
complex products on the market, converting consumers into prosumers, where
the boundary between energy production and consumption becomes fluid. Here
significant additional benefits can differentiate such products, and direct selling
is one of several options to organize the distribution. Direct sales are particularly
suited to drive complex products.
3. Finally, new companies will enter the energy market, also with pure RE products
or those very close to RE. Already, product offerings from companies such as
Alphabet Inc. (parent company of Google) are available on the market, with Nest
Labs selling a smart home product that competes directly with proprietary
products of utilities or the energy industry in general. For these innovative
product categories, it remains an open question which distribution channels
will be successful in the future, but at this point, direct sales is at least worth
considering.
In summary, RE products can be sold through direct sales as a channel within a

multichannel strategy. The checklist of ten criteria proposed in this paper will help
to assess the suitability of RE products for direct sales. In the future, it can safely be
assumed, that additional and more innovative RE products will find customers
through direct sales.
References
BDD. (2012). Multi-Channel-Strategien—Direktvertrieb gewinnt weiter an Bedeutung. Accessed
August 30, 2014, from http://www.direktvertrieb.de/News-detail.241.0.html?&tx_ttnews%
5Btt_news%5D¼581&cHash¼7225e4e6060c7c568e068860edaf4f49.
BDD. (2013). BDD_Mitgliedsunternehmen erh€ohen Verbraucherschutz. Accessed August
30, 2014, from http://www.direktvertrieb.de/News-detail.241.0.html?&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news
%5D¼726&cHash¼b382c5e255ddca048f5f0348bc1c88cb.
BDD. (2016). BDD Mitglieder steigern Umsatz um 12 Prozent. Accessed May 11, 2016, from
http://www.direktvertrieb.de/News-detail.241.0.html?&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D¼977&
cHash¼f04b4d712f06e5cde0cd6c754dcfbeef.
Elementerra. (2006). Elementerra beweist erfolgreiche Vermarktung von Stadtwerke-Produkten
durch Direktvertrieb. Accessed August 30, 2014, from http://www.finanznachrichten.de/
nachrichten-2006-03/6127152-elementerra-beweist-erfolgreiche-vermarktung-von-stadtwerke-
produkten-durch-direktvertrieb-007.htm.
88 C. Friege
Engelhardt, W. H., & Jaeger, A. (1998). Der Direktvertrieb von konsumtiven Leistungen—
Forschungsprojekt im Auftrag des Arbeitskreises. Bochum: Gut beraten—zuhause gekauft.
Friege, C. (2016). Der Direktvertrieb in Mehrkanalstrategien. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.
Friege, C., & Dharshing, S. (2015). Vivint Solar: Expanding into a European Market Governed by
Different Regulation. University of St. Gallen Case Study Series. The Case Centre Ref.
No. 315-211-1 (Case) No. 315-211-8 (Teaching Note).
Friege, C., & Herbes, C. (2017). Marketing renewable energy—Fundamental concepts. In
C. Herbes & C. Friege (Eds.), Marketing renewable energy. Heidelberg: Springer.
Friege, C., Kraus, F., & Sahin, E. (2013). Direktvertrieb. Wirtschaftswissenschaftliches Studium
(WiSt), 42(5), 224–230.
562–572.
LichtBlick. (2009). LichtBlick-Direktvertrieb weiter auf Wachstumskurs. Medien-Mitteilung vom
18. März 2009. Accessed August 29, 2014, from http://www.lichtblick.de/medien/news/?
detail¼140&type¼press.
LichtBlick (2016): About Us. Accessed July 16, 2016, from https://www.lichtblick.de/en/
schwarmdirigent/about.
Neslin, S. A., & Shankar, V. (2009). Key issues in multichannel customer management: Current
knowledge and future directions. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23, 70–81.
Peterson, R. A., & Wotruba, T. R. (1996). What is direct selling?—Definition, perspectives and
research agenda. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 16(4), 1–16.
Sch€ogel, M., & Binder, J. (2011). Profitables Channel Management. In C. Belz (Ed.), Innovationen
im Kundendialog (pp. 177–195). Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Sch€ogel, M., et al. (2011). Multi-channel management im CRM. In H. Hippner et al. (Eds.),
Grundlagen des CRM (pp. 559–597). Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Sharma, D., & Gassenheimer, J. B. (2009). Internet channel and perceived cannibalization.
European Journal of Marketing, 43(7/8), 1076–1091.
University of Mannheim. (2014). Situation der Direktvertriebsbranche in Deutschland 2013—
Studie im Auftrag des Bundesverband Direktvertrieb Deutschland e.V.; Zusammenfassung der
Ergebnisse. Accessed August 31, 2014, from http://www.direktvertrieb.de/index.php?eID¼tx_
nawsecuredl&u¼0&file¼fileadmin/user_upload/MAIN-dateien/Kurzfassung_BDD_Marktstudie_
2014.pdf&t¼1409582296&hash¼b69c53804abdb6c0a7f5bc9ac109a26806e746e4.
Vorwerk. (2016). Vorwerk Direct Sales. Accessed July 16, 2016, from http://corporate.vorwerk.
de/en/portrait/direct-sales/.
WFDSA. (2016). Annual Report 2016. Accessed July 16, 2016, from http://wfdsa.org/download/
advocacy/annual_report/WFDSA-Annual-Report-2016.PDF.
Zhang, J., et al. (2010). Crafting integrated multichannel retailing strategies. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 24, 168–180.
Christian Friege holds a doctorate in business administra-

tion from Catholic University Eichstaett. He was CEO of
Lichtblick AG, Germany’s leading green energy provider
until 2012 and consulted in the field thereafter. Before
joining Lichtblick he was Chief Customer Officer on the
board of debitel AG and Chief Executive of BCA
(a Bertelsmann subsidiary) in the UK. Currently, he is
Chief Sales Officer on the board of CEWE Stiftung & Co
KGaA. Throughout his managerial career he has always
maintained a strong research interest in the field of market-
ing and sales. His academic publications have appeared in
Journal of Service Research, Marketing Review St. Gallen
and Energy Policy. Most recently he co-edited books in
German on Marketing Renewable Energy and Financing
Green Energy Projects together with Prof. Dr. Carsten
Herbes.
Market Segmentation for Green Electricity
Marketing Results of a Choice-Based
Conjoint Analysis with German Electricity
Consumers
Stefanie Lena Hille, Andrea Tabi, and Rolf Wüstenhagen
Abstract
Consumers have the power to contribute to creating a more sustainable future by
subscribing to green electricity tariffs. To reach consumers “beyond the
eco-niche,” identifying the drivers that positively influence the adoption of
green electricity is of fundamental importance. This chapter examines various
factors that help to explain the extent to which green electricity subscribers differ
from those who display strong preferences toward green electricity but have not
yet “walked the talk.” By making use of a latent class segmentation analysis
based on choice-based conjoint data, this chapter identifies three groups of
potential green electricity adopters with varying degrees of preference for
renewable energy. Findings indicate that sociodemographic factors play a mar-
ginal role in explaining the differences between green electricity subscribers and
potential adopters, with the exception that actual adopters tend to be better
educated. Analysis of psychographic and behavioral features reveals that
adopters tend to perceive consumer effectiveness to be higher, tend to estimate
lower prices for green electricity tariffs, are willing to pay significantly more for
other eco-friendly products, and are more likely to have recently changed their
electricity contract than nonadopters.
This chapter is a shortened and adapted version of the article “What makes people seal the green
power deal?—A customer segmentation based on choice experiments in Germany,” written by
the same authors, which was published in 2014 in the journal Ecological Economics, vol. 107,
pp. 206–215.
S.L. Hille (*) • A. Tabi • R. Wüstenhagen
Institute for Economy and the Environment (IWÖ-HSG), Good Energies Chair for Management of
Renewable Energies, University of St. Gallen, Tigerbergstrasse 2, 9000 St. Gallen, Switzerland
e-mail: stefanie.hille@unisg.ch

92 S.L. Hille et al.
Keywords
Market segmentation • Choice-based conjoint analysis • Green electricity •
Latent class analysis • Green marketing
1 Introduction
With the liberalization of the electricity market in 1998, German residential

customers were given the opportunity to freely choose their preferred electricity
provider and electricity product from among several competitors. However, despite
the fact that recent consumer research in Germany shows that many German
citizens have strong preferences for renewable energy sources (Gerpott and
Mahmudova 2010; Kaenzig et al. 2013), the share of green electricity consumers
is still in the single-digit percentage range (Litvine and Wüstenhagen 2011). In
other words, even when consumers demonstrate a strong preference for green
electricity, they are largely passive when it comes to purchasing decisions.
The residential sector accounts for almost 25 % of total final electricity con-
sumption in Germany (BMU 2009). Germany generated about 16 % of this amount
from renewable sources in 2009, with the share increasing to 23 % in 2012 (BMWI
2013). Generating electricity from renewable energy sources is fundamentally
important in a sustainable and secure energy system (Madlener and Stagl 2005)
and helps reduce dependence on foreign energy sources and hedges the risk
associated with movements in oil and natural gas prices.
In this regard, consumers have the power to express their desire for a more
sustainable future by subscribing to a green electricity tariff (Diaz-Rainey and
Ashton 2011). Identifying the consumer segments that are most receptive to
purchasing green electricity, exploring what product features customers in those
segments value most, and analyzing what distinguishes them from consumers that
have already switched to green electricity are fundamentally important if targeted
messaging is to be developed by policymakers and marketers that will reach
consumers “beyond the eco-niche” (Villiger et al. 2000).
To contribute to the existing literature in this field, the approach of a choice-
based conjoint (CBC) analysis was chosen to indirectly elicit the preferences of a
representative sample of the German population for electricity product attributes.
Based on CBC data, a latent class approach to market segmentation is then followed
by capturing market heterogeneity in attribute preferences across a full set of
attributes in order to identify segments with similar preferences (Desarbo et al.
1995).
Marketers can use the insights of this study to more effectively satisfy
consumers’ needs by developing more effective and focused marketing strategies.
Another goal of the research is to identify a series of sociodemographic, psycho-
graphic, and behavioral factors that allow a distinction to be made between
consumers who have already subscribed to a green electricity tariff and those
Market Segmentation for Green Electricity Marketing Results of a Choice. . . 93
who display strong preferences for a green electricity product but have not yet
“walked the talk” (Litvine and Wüstenhagen 2011).
2 Related Research
Many studies in green marketing have attempted to define the characteristics of

green consumers for segmentation purposes. In the marketing literature, these
factors are often classified into the categories of geographic characteristics (e.g.,
geographic region), demographic and socioeconomic characteristics (e.g., age, sex,
and household size), psychographic characteristics (e.g., values, lifestyle, and
personality variables), and behavioral variables (e.g., purchase occasion) (Kotler
and Keller 2006).
With regard to sociodemographic factors, several studies have focused on
investigating the characteristics of potential consumers of green electricity who
claim to be willing to pay a premium for green electricity. For example, several
authors (Rowlands et al. 2003; Zarnikau 2003; Ek and Soderholm 2008; Diaz-
Rainey and Ashton 2011) showed that earning a higher income tends to increase
reported willingness to pay (WTP) a premium for green electricity. Gerpott and
Mahmudova (2010) positively correlate household size with WTP for green elec-
tricity. In addition, several authors have claimed that WTP for green electricity
tends to be positively correlated with a higher level of education (Rowlands et al.
2003; Zarnikau 2003; Wiser 2007; Ek and Soderholm 2008). Regarding other
variables, Rowlands et al. (2003) showed that gender did not significantly explain
a higher WTP for green electricity. Finally, several studies have concluded that
younger consumers are also more willing to pay a higher premium for green
electricity (Zarnikau 2003; Gerpott and Mahmudova 2010).
Although these briefly summarized findings are far from conclusive, they do
indicate that sociodemographic variables have an influence on WTP for green
electricity and offer an easy approach to segmenting the market. However, most
authors agree that psychographic and behavioral characteristics are particularly
important in explaining environmentally friendly behavior (Straughan and Roberts
1999).
In this connection, Diaz-Rainey and Ashton (2011) have pointed out that knowl-
edge about green electricity has an important influence on preferences for green
electricity. In addition, customers with a high price tolerance for green electricity
have been characterized as having positive attitudes toward green electricity
(Hansla et al. 2008), toward environmental protection (Gerpott and Mahmudova
2010; Rowlands et al. 2003), and greater concern for environmental problems
(Rowlands et al. 2003).
In addition, perceived consumer effectiveness in an environmental context (i.e.,
the extent to which consumers think their own behavior might help to preserve the
environment) has been shown to correlate with a stronger preference for green
electricity (Rowlands et al. 2003).
In terms of behavioral variables, both Gerpott and Mahmudova (2010) and

Wiser (2007) showed that consumers who are involved in pro-environmental
activities have a higher willingness to pay for green electricity. Another relevant
factor is whether a respondent has undergone a significant life event or change in
status such as a divorce or relocation. For instance, Arnold (2011) determined that
whether a respondent has relocated is (positively) correlated with their WTP a
surcharge for sustainable products.
In contrast with research that has profiled potential adopters of green electricity,
research into the profiles of subscribers to green electricity tariffs (Adopters) is
relatively scarce; only a few studies have attempted to explore this topic so far
(Rose et al. 2002; Clark et al. 2003; Arkesteijn and Oerlemans 2005; Kotchen and
Moore 2007).
For example, Clark et al. (2003) found that participants in green electricity
programs tend to have higher incomes and fewer members in their households
than consumers that have not opted to purchase green electricity. In contrast,
Kotchen and Moore (2007) found that demographic variables were not statistically
significant in explaining adoption, although attitudinal factors such as environmen-
tal concern had a positive effect. In contrast, MacPherson and Lange (2013) found
that respondents with incomes in the highest income quartile, those with higher
levels of education, those who supported the Green Party, and those who exhibited
strongly pro-environmental behavior were all more likely to have signed up to be
supplied with green electricity. Moreover, Arkesteijn and Oerlemans (2005) found
a negative correlation between the perceived difference in the price of gray and
green power and the probability of adoption of green electricity. This finding is in
line with a study by Clausen (2008) that found that green electricity buyers in
Germany were overestimating the price of green electricity fourfold, whereas
nonadopters were on average overestimating the real price by up to ten times.
Previously, green electricity was typically sold at a higher price than conventional
energy. Although the real price difference between green electricity and conven-
tional power has significantly decreased over the last decade in Germany,
consumers who have not opted for green electricity might still be implicitly
assuming that electricity generated from renewable energy sources costs signifi-
cantly more. This inaccurate perception of cost may be a component of the attitude–
behavior gap, in that the perceived price difference results in an obstacle to the
acceptance and uptake of the environmentally friendly product alternative.
3 Study Design
3.1 Investigating Stated Preference with Choice-Based Conjoint

Analysis
This study makes use of a CBC analysis. This approach is very suitable for
examining preferences for hypothetical products or attribute combinations when
it is not possible to observe actual purchasing behavior or to measure preferences
through revealed preference methods (Ewing and Sarig€ollü 2000).
More precisely, this method simulates a real buying situation for respondents,
where a choice must be made between several products. These products differ in
their attributes, and respondents are required to choose one “package” from the
choice set (Sammer and Wüstenhagen 2006). Consumer preferences for product
attributes are implicitly derived from the stated choices through indirect questions.
CBC analysis has been used by several scholars to identify the attributes of an
electricity product that are important to consumers (e.g., Kaenzig et al. 2013; Cai
et al. 1998; Goett et al. 2000; Burkhalter et al. 2009). For example, a recent study by
Kaenzig et al. (2013), on which this chapter builds, investigated the relative
importance of different product attributes in the purchasing choices of German
households. They found that price and electricity mix were the two most important
attributes for the average customer, followed by the location of electricity genera-
tion, a price guarantee, certification with an eco-label, type of power provider (e.g.,
municipal utility or major national provider), and the terms of cancellation of the
contract (notice period). Research by Burkhalter et al. (2009) revealed similar
findings for the Swiss market. Swiss consumers also considered the electricity
mix to be the most important attribute, followed by monthly electricity costs and
the location of electricity generation. Other attributes, such as the electricity
supplier, pricing model, eco-certification, and contract duration, only played a
subordinate role. Rowlands et al. (2003) showed that price, reliability of power
supply, and environmental features were the most important factors influencing the
choice of a power supplier. Goett et al. (2000) also found that customers were
vitally concerned about the provision of renewable energy. A recent study into
preferences for electricity attributes in Germany highlighted that the most impor-
tant product attributes for German customers, besides price and price guarantee,
were that the energy provider should invest in renewable energy sources and that
the power should be regionally generated (Mattes 2012).
3.2 Market Segmentation
Consumers often have diverse preferences. To effectively target the market, het-
erogeneity of buyer preferences should be considered in order to identify promising
market segments. More than three decades ago two main approaches to market
segmentation were identified (Wind 1978; Green 1977). With a priori segmentation
respondents are classified into groups on the basis of demographic or socioeco-
nomic variables; using post hoc segmentation respondents are clustered according
to a set of interrelated variables (e.g., preferences associated with a product). With
conjoint analysis such a post hoc segmentation approach to market segmentation
can be followed by capturing market heterogeneity in attribute preferences across a
full set of attributes in order to obtain segments with similar preferences (Desarbo
et al. 1995). By knowing which sociodemographic, psychographic, and behavioral
variables predominate in a segment, marketers are able to define marketing
strategies that more closely match consumer needs.
3.3 Methodology
A preexisting data set of a representative sample of German electricity customers

was used for the present study (Kaenzig et al. 2013). These data are a subsample of
a larger representative consumer survey among 1257 German households that was
carried out in June 2009 through the project seco@home. Respondents were
surveyed using the computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI) method at the
respondents’ homes. This research makes use of a data set that is based on 4968
choice observations by a total of 414 respondents.
The survey design, the data collection process, and the sample are described in
detail in Kaenzig et al. (2013). The choice experiment was set up in such a way that
respondents received a series of 12 choice tasks involving comparisons of different
electricity products with varying levels of attributes. By making use of a full-profile
design, each choice task required respondents to choose from three different
electricity products defined according to seven (randomly allocated) attributes.
Data collected about the results of the choices were then used as input for a
hierarchical Bayesian analysis, which allowed the estimation of part-worth utilities
at the individual level. Kaenzig et al. (2013) show that the source of the energy and
monthly electricity costs are the two most important decision-making attributes for
the average electricity consumer. In addition, the authors reveal an implicit average
WTP a premium of about 16 % for electricity from renewable sources. Instead of
reporting on only one model of preferences that was built for all the respondents,
the focus of the present study is to go a step further in the analysis of the same data
set by identifying, via a latent class approach, the preferences and characteristics of
different market segments for potential green electricity consumers. For this pur-
pose, the following different sociodemographic, psychographic, and behavioral
variables were selected (Table 1).
Table 1 Variables selected

Variable Description
Demographics Gender (1 ¼ male, 2 ¼ female)
Age (years)
Household monthly net income (1 ¼ under 1000 euros,
2 ¼ 1000–1499 euros, 3 ¼ 1500–1999 euros,
4 ¼ 2000–2499 euros, 5 ¼ 2500–3499 euros, 6 ¼ more than
3500 euros)
Education (1 ¼ no formal education, 2 ¼ primary school,
3 ¼ secondary school, 4 ¼ polytechnical secondary school,
5 ¼ college, 6 ¼ high school, 7 ¼ university degree)
Household size (number of people living in household)
Psychographic and Relocation (relocation within last 5 years (yes/no)
behavioral characteristics Switching of electricity tariff during last 5 years (yes/no)
The following variables were chosen to measure sensitivity to
environmental issues:
Climate concern: aggregate level of dis/agreement with the
following statements (1: agree, 2: neutral, 3: disagree):
– Humans are solely responsible for any effects of climate
change that occur
– As a consequence of climate change the quality of life of the
population will worsen
– Climate change threatens the livelihoods of humankind
– There are no serious consequences from climate change
Support for eco-taxes and regulatory tools: level of
dis/agreement with the following statement (1: agree, 2: neutral
3: disagree):
– Environmental protection should be ensured through the
introduction of mandatory eco-taxes and other legislation
Trust in science: level of dis/agreement with the following
statement (1: agree, 2: neutral 3: disagree):
– Science and technology will solve many environmental
problems without requiring changes in our way of living
Perceived consumer effectiveness: level of dis/agreement with
the following statement (1: agree, 2: neutral 3: disagree):
– As citizens we are able to contribute significantly to
protecting the environment through our purchasing behavior
Awareness of green electricity labels: TÜV, Grüner Strom
Label, ok power (1: no knowledge of any labels 2: knowledge
of at least one label, 3: knowledge of at least two labels)
Estimation of cost of green electricity: what is your estimate of
the cost of green electricity compared to conventional
electricity? [1: much more expensive (more than 10 %), 2:
slightly more expensive (up to 10 %), 3: same price, 4: slightly
cheaper (up to 10 %), 5: much cheaper (more than 10 %)]
Willingness to pay (WTP) for eco-friendly products: willing to
purchase environmentally friendly everyday products
(dichotomous, yes/no)
Table 2 Mean utility values for five segments

Potential adopters
Price-
Truly sensitive Local Likely
Adopters Greens greens patriots nonadopters
Segment size n ¼ 29 n ¼ 117 n ¼ 78 n ¼ 108 n ¼ 82
Electricity mix
Mix 1 (60 % coal, 25 % nuclear 179.0 179.8 135.4 25.9 26.7
power, 15 % unknown origin) (51.7)a (38.4) (35.2) (67.3) (45.7)
Mix 2 (60 % coal, 25 % nuclear 105.69 114.7 67.6 3.5 8.7 (33.7)
power, 5 % hydropower, 5 % (44.3) (26.4) (29.9) (47.1)
wind, 5 % biomass)
Mix 3 (60 % coal, 25 % natural 4.08 7.3 31.4 16.4 8.3 (30.6)
gas, 5 % hydropower, 5 % (35.2) (34.3) (36.9) (45.6)
wind, 5 % biomass)
Mix 4 (50 % wind, 30 % 147.79 141.0 87.0 10.6 10.5 (38.3)
hydropower, 15 % biomass, (54.8) (37.9) (36.0) (54.5)
5 % solar)
Mix 5 (100 % wind) 140.99 160.8 84.7 2.5 16.8 (49.0)
(70.8) (42.9) (33.8) (67.9)
Power provider
Big, national provider 6.56 7.2 7.0 1.2 2.8 (12.6)
(10.3) (10.8) (12.3) (19.7)
Medium-sized, regional 3.16 4.0 0.2 2.4 0.4 (15.2)
provider (15.6) (15.1) (14.6) (25.1)
Municipal 5.27 4.7 7.8 3.4 0.7 (17.3)
(13.6) (14.7) (20.1) (25.6)
Specialized provider 1.87 1.5 0.6 4.6 1.6 (17.1)
(15.1) (15.6) (15.6) (23.4)
Location of electricity generation
Local region 16.05 21.0 21.0 54.3 16.9 (18.2)
(17.5) (21.8) (22.9) (38.3)
Germany 19.98 18.7 21.8 53.4 14.8 (19.7)
(16.7) (19.9) (23.2) (40.8)
Switzerland 3.76 5.0 10.4 37.9 11.8
(17.3) (20.6) (24.0) (42.0) (20.8)
Eastern Europe 32.28 34.7 32.5 69.8 19.9
(26.5) (28.2) (30.2) (44.5) (24.9)
Monthly electricity costs 7.98 6.7 11.1 7.9 18.83
(5.6) (3.2) (2.7) (4.1) (3.9)
Certification
Ok power 4.18 1.1 1.4 2.5 4.1 (13.4)
(16.5) (11.5) (14.0) (21.2)
TÜV 0.91 3.1 7.1 4.6 0.5 (12.5)
(12.7) (13.1) (13.9) (22.3)
Grüner strom label 2.72 1.7 6.6 9.8 11.3 (12.4)
(12.9) (12.7) (11.8) (19.0)
(continued)
Table 2 (continued)
Potential adopters
Price-
Truly sensitive Local Likely
Adopters Greens greens patriots nonadopters
No certification 7.81 5.9 15.1 16.9 6.7 (18.2)
(14.9) (16.8) (16.7) (23.9)
Price guarantee
None 10.04 12.0 21.3 32.0 25.0
(16.9) (14.1) (18.0) (28.1) (18.4)
6 months 5.57 1.8 0.3 3.6 1.5 (14.3)
(13.3) (13.9) (14.9) (23.0)
12 months 9.35 6.4 9.1 5.7 10.9 (13.9)
(13.9) (15.3) (15.9) (27.0)
24 months 6.26 7.4 12.6 22.6 12.6 (19.6)
(13.8) (17.1) (15.8) (29.3)
Cancellation period
Monthly 4.66 2.5 4.4 9.1 6.2 (17.1)
(13.1) (14.3) (17.8) (25.1)
Quarterly 4.54 4.2 4.1 0.3 3.5 (11.9)
(10.0) (13.3) (14.6) (23.9)
Bi-annually 3.86 0.9 3.6 5.3 0.3 (14.3)
(14.1) (15.1) (15.5) (23.4)
Yearly 5.34 5.8 4.0 4.1 2.4 (14.7)
(11.8) (13.4) (17.2) (26.5)
None (would not buy) 158.30 115.8 61.8 126.0 99.5 (151.0)
(119.6) (106.3) (121.2) (170.3)
a
Standard deviations are shown in parentheses
4 Results
We used Sawtooth software and its latent class module to reveal respondent
segments with similar preference structures in the choice data (Sawtooth 2004).
In this section detailed results from the hierarchical Bayes (HB) estimation for the
different segments identified via the latent class segmentation procedure are
presented first. A presentation of the sociodemographic, psychographic, and behav-
ioral variables of the resulting segments then follows. Finally, the characteristics of
potential adopters that were significantly different from those of consumers that had
already adopted green electricity are described.
4.1 Preferences for Different Product Attributes
Table 2 shows the part-worth utilities and the corresponding standard deviations of
five different market segments. As described earlier, four main profiles were
Table 3 Relative attribute importance scores for five segments

Potential adopters
Price-
Actual Truly sensitive Local Likely
adopters Greens greens patriots nonadopters
Segment size n ¼ 29 n ¼ 117 n ¼ 78 n ¼ 108 n ¼ 82
Electricity mix (%) 48.6 50.8 34.2 20.9 14.9
Power provider (%) 4.8 4.9 5.3 7.8 5.1
Location of electricity 9.0 10.0 10.5 21.1 8.4
generation (%)
Monthly electricity costs (%) 23.2 19.4 31.8 22.8 53.8
Certification (%) 4.6 4.6 5.5 8.0 5.5
Price guarantee (%) 5.4 5.6 7.0 11.2 7.4
Cancellation period (%) 4.4 4.8 5.5 8.1 4.9
Total (%) 100 100 100 100 100
identified in the latent class analysis. A group of respondents (n ¼ 29) who had
already subscribed to a green power tariff was excluded from the sample and
thereafter given the name Adopters.
Part-worth utilities were rescaled and expressed as zero-centered diffs to
increase comparability between groups. Positive values represent an increase in
utility relative to the average level of that particular attribute, while negative values
represent decreasing utility. Generally, utility values are dependent on the selected
range of attribute levels and should thus primarily be used to compare the part-
worth utilities of different levels of a given attribute.
Three out of the profiles included in Table 2 can be described as Potential
Adopters based on their clear preference for electricity products derived from
renewable energy sources. The remaining segment is the Likely Nonadopter seg-
ment that is fairly price-sensitive and places significant emphasis on the cost of the
monthly electricity product when making purchasing decisions. Members of this
group are the least likely to choose to buy green electricity at the moment.
However, the current segmentation of those consumers with high price sensitivity
into Likely Nonadopters will not remain valid if the cost of electricity from green
electricity sources becomes less than or equal to that derived from conventional
energy sources.
For the next step of the analysis we then used the individual part-worth utilities
from the HB analysis and computed attribute importance scores for each segment
(Table 3). These scores describe how much influence each attribute has on the
decision to purchase. Importance scores are standardized to sum to 100 % across all
attributes (Orme 2010).
As shown in Table 3, the most important attribute for the three segments
Adopters, Truly Greens, and Price-Sensitive Greens is the composition of the
electricity mix. The second and third most important product attributes are also
identical for these three clusters (namely, the monthly electricity cost and the
location of electricity generation, respectively). In contrast, Local Patriots consider

monthly electricity costs to be the most important product attribute, followed by the
location of electricity generation and the electricity mix. The Likely Nonadopter
segment also holds the monthly electricity costs of an electricity product to be the
most important attribute (54 %). To detect significant differences in the selected
variables described among the five clusters, Mann–Whitney U nonparametric tests
were performed. Truly Greens have product attribute preferences similar to those of
Adopters ( p > 0.05 when comparing preferences at all attribute levels). Adopters
significantly favor an electricity mix consisting of renewable energy resources
(mixes 4 and 5) compared to the other three clusters of Potential Adopters. Adopters
also significantly negatively prefer electricity mixes containing fossil and nuclear
energy resources (compared to all other clusters at p < 0.05, except for Truly
Greens). Adopters are significantly less price sensitive compared to Price-Sensitive
Greens. No significant differences compared to Truly Greens and Local Patriots
could be found in this respect. When comparing the differences in preferences
between the three segments of Potential Adopters, it may be seen that Price-
Sensitive Greens attach less importance to the electricity mix and more importance
to monthly electricity costs compared to Local Patriots. Local Patriots show the
strongest preferences for local electricity generation (within their region or within
Germany) compared to all other clusters ( p < 0.001, all cases). Interestingly, the
attribute “certification” was valued most by Local Patriots in comparison to the
other identified segments, although the finding was not statistically significant.
Nonadopters can likely be distinguished from other clusters by their low level of
interest in green electricity and their high sensitivity to monthly electricity costs.
4.2 Market Segments Analyzed by Sociodemographic,

Psychographic, and Behavioral Characteristics
The last step was to analyze whether differences existed between subscribers to
green electricity tariffs and the different segments of Potential Adopters in terms of
the characteristics analyzed. Mean values are summarized in Table 4.1
Sociodemographic characteristics such as gender, age, household net income
and household size were similarly distributed across the five identified clusters,
with the exception of level of education. The analysis, however, shows that
Adopters were on average better educated, a finding that corresponds with existing
research (one third of all respondents in this group have a university degree). In
contrast, the share of respondents with a university degree from the other four
clusters ranged between 7 and 12 %. Interestingly, the Truly Greens segment had on
average the minimum level of formal education of all the clusters (almost 80 % of
these respondents had only completed secondary education) yet enjoyed the highest
1
Tabi et al. (2014), p. 214, details the p-levels and the test statistics of selected pairwise
comparisons.
Table 4 Market segments by sociodemographic, psychographic, and behavioral characteristics

Potential adopters
Price-
Actual Truly sensitive Local Likely
adopters Greens greens patriots nonadopters
Sociodemographic data
Gender, females (%) 41.40 51.30 52.60 45.40 42.70
Age (years) 47.4 49.1 49.95 51.29 50.93 (12.9)
(14.1) (12.1) (14.5) (14.8)
Level of education 4.5 (2.1)3.2 3.6 (1.8) 3.5 3.3 (1.6)
(1.5) (1.7)
Level of income 3.5 (1.9) 3.8 3.5 (1.5) 3.2 2.9(1.4)
(1.5) (1.6)
Household size 1.86 2.08 2.05 (1.2) 2.18 2.04 (1.1)
(0.9) (1.1) (1.2)
Psychographic and behavioral characteristics
Relocation: yes (%) 45 27 33 25 25
Switch electricity contract: yes 69 12 17 20 16
(%)
Level of climate concern: high 93 89 84 75 64
(%)
Perceived consumer 90 66 69 59 46
effectiveness: agree (%)
Trust in science: disagree (%) 72 45 35 35 40
Support for eco-taxes: agree 72 54 60 46 38
(%)
Awareness of green electricity 21 14 12 9 5
labels: 2 or more (%)
Estimated price premium for 2.3 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.7
green electricitya
Willingness to pay for 79 53 42 37 21
eco-friendly products: yes (%)
a
Average value of response to the question: What is your estimate of the cost of green electricity
compared to conventional electricity? [1: much more expensive (more than 10 %), 2: slightly more
(up to 10 %), 3: same price, 4: slightly cheaper (up to 10 %); 5: much cheaper (more than 10 %)].
The higher the average value, the lower the estimated price for green electricity.
Standard deviations are shown in parentheses.
average household net income of all the clusters (although not significantly differ-
ent than that of Adopters). Worth mentioning here is the fact that while income in
all clusters had a more or less normal distribution, 30 % of Adopters were placed in
the highest and 40 % in the first and second lowest income categories. This finding
should be further explored in future research to generate a better understanding of
the nature of green electricity subscribers.
However, the average income of the Truly Greens segment differed significantly
from the average of the Local Patriots and the Likely Nonadopters. Our results are
therefore in line with those of many other authors (Rowlands et al. 2003; Zarnikau
2003; Gossling et al. 2005; Wiser 2007; Ek and Soderholm 2008; Diaz-Rainey and
Ashton 2011; Sagebiel et al. 2014) and reinforce the evidence that says that
preferences for green electricity significantly differ across income groups. Among
Adopters, 66 % live alone (i.e., have a smaller household size on average compared
to respondents from other clusters), but no statistically significant differences could
be found compared to Potential Adopters.
With regard to psychographic and behavioral characteristics, segments with a
high preference for electricity mixes sourced from renewable energy could be
characterized by their higher degree of concern for climate-change-related issues.
Decreases in concern for climate change are correlated to decreases in the strength
of preference for green electricity. However, no significant difference could be
found between Adopters and Truly Greens in this regard. Significant differences
were, on the other hand, found with variables that were used to examine sensitivity
to environmental issues. More precisely, Potential Adopters are more likely to
agree that science and technology will solve many environmental problems without
requiring changes in our ways of living than Adopters. In addition, support for
eco-taxes is also significantly higher with Adopters than it is with Local Patriots,
whereas no significant difference could be found among Truly Greens and Price-
Sensitive Greens.
In line with previous research that found that perceived consumer effectiveness
plays a major role in forming pro-environmental behavior, a significant difference
was identified between Potential Adopters and Adopters.
The perceived price level of green electricity (in contrast to conventional
electricity products) differed significantly between Adopters and all other clusters.
Only about 10 % of Adopters but 25 % of the Truly Greens and 43 % of the Likely
Nonadopters believed that the cost of green electricity was 10 % or more than
conventional electricity products. Whereas at the beginning of the process of
liberalization of the electricity market in Germany green electricity was typically
sold at a significantly higher price than electricity produced from conventional
energy sources, the price difference has significantly decreased over the last decade.
At the time this research was conducted, the costs of green tariffs in Germany
showed high variability depending on the provider, with some offering cheaper
green electricity than conventional electricity. Our results are therefore in line with
previous research that showed that erroneous perceptions about the price difference
between gray power and green power act to decrease the probability of the adoption
of green electricity (Arkesteijn and Oerlemans 2005). Consumers who have not yet
opted for green electricity may still be implicitly assuming that electricity generated
from renewable energy sources is significantly more costly, even though reality
tells a different story.
Awareness of green electricity labels also differed significantly between
Adopters and two segments of Potential Adopters, the Price-Sensitive Greens and
the Local Patriots. In addition, a weak (but nonetheless significant, at 10 %,
significance level) difference between Adopters and Truly Greens with regard to
the share of respondents who had changed residence within the last 5 years was
found. Targeting consumers in the course of changing residence thus represents an
interesting starting point for green power marketing, but the effectiveness of such a
marketing campaign depends on the targeted segment.
Finally, the general WTP for eco-friendly products also differed significantly
between Adopters and the three segments of Potential Adopters. This finding
demonstrates that the marketing of premium-priced products has certain limits.
5 Conclusions and Recommendations
Many customers exhibit positive attitudes toward renewable electricity mixes, but
only a small percentage of them have already opted for green electricity tariffs. The
research described in this chapter was designed to reveal the characteristics that
distinguish subscribers of green electricity tariffs from potential green electricity
adopters. Based on the 4968 experimental choices of a representative sample of
414 German consumers, different consumer segments were identified based on their
preferences for different electricity product attributes. Results suggest that the
majority of respondents (80 %) have a clear preference for electricity mixes derived
from renewable energy sources, but only 7 % of them had already translated their
preferences into purchases of green electricity at the time the study was conducted.
Correspondingly, the main goal of the research was to highlight how Adopters
differ from those who show interest in renewables but have not yet subscribed to a
green electricity product (i.e., Potential Adopters).
Demographic variables were found to play a marginal role in explaining the
difference between Adopters and Potential Adopters, which corresponds to earlier
research findings (Kotchen and Moore 2007). Results of this study show, however,
that Adopters can be characterized by their significantly higher average level of
education.
Our results suggest that it is particularly psychographic and behavioral factors
that have great explanatory power when it comes to understanding why consumers
who evince strong preferences for electricity produced from renewable energy
sources do not act according to their preferences by opting to purchase green
power (Fig. 1). For instance, estimates of the price difference between green and
standard electricity tariffs is lower among Adopters than among Potential Adopters.
In addition, Adopters demonstrate a greater awareness of green electricity labels
than other segments, except for Truly Greens. Adopters also change their place of
residence significantly more often than two segments of Potential Adopters and
have more often recently switched their electricity tariffs. Adopters can be further
characterized by their higher level of perceived consumer effectiveness compared
to all other segments of Potential Adopters. Regarding price-related variables,
Adopters, in contrast to the other segments of Potential Adopters, tend to be willing
to pay significantly more for eco-friendly products.
For marketers, these findings indicate a major opportunity. Although the number
of Adopters of green electricity might still be low, reported customer preferences
suggest that there is significant potential for the number of adopters to rise. We can
underline the role of a multitude of factors that could be exploited to convince
consumers to seal the green power deal. Education seems to play a highly influential
role in purchasing decisions and may also make a strong contribution to higher
perceived consumer effectiveness. This highlights the necessity of better
Fig. 1 Determinants of green electricity adoption
communication about the actual impacts of opting for green power. Previous
research shows that increasing perceived impact by providing information about
social and private benefits can successfully modify purchasing behavior (Litvine
and Wüstenhagen 2011). Our findings also draw attention to the existence of
inaccurate perceptions about green electricity prices. Respondents were asked
about the likely price premium between conventional and green tariffs. The major-
ity of Potential Adopters estimated a premium of more than 10 %, even though the
green tariffs at the time of conducting the survey did not always exceed prices for
conventionally derived energy on the German market. This indicates that more
accurate marketing communication about the actual price of green electricity could
pay off in terms of increasing the uptake of green energy tariffs. Another interesting
result for marketers is the strong preference of Potential Adopters for domestically
produced electricity. This establishes the potential for the implementation of
national or regionalized energy policies (such as introducing standards that require
a declaration about the origin of the electricity source—although tradeoffs with the
internal EU electricity market need to be considered). The Local Patriots segment
identified in the research places almost the same emphasis on the location of power
generation as it does on the cost of the electricity. Accordingly, advertising the
regional origins of electricity might be particularly fruitful for this segment. The
two segments Price-Sensitive Greens and Truly Greens do not differ with regard to
most variables investigated, so they could be targeted with similar messages;
however, the Price-Sensitive Greens are much more sensitive to increases in the
cost of electricity. Power marketers could respond to these findings by targeting this
segment with lower prices and a slightly lower share of green electricity in the mix.
For policymakers we can highlight that raising the level of perceived consumer
effectiveness and increasing the feeling of being responsible for climate change can
effectively constitute the core of environmental policies. For instance, Truly Greens
might be targeted with awareness- raising campaigns that draw attention to the
importance of taking individual action to safeguard the environment or the respon-
sibility of humans for climate change. Findings show a low awareness of ecolabels
among electricity consumers, which also represents an opportunity for

policymakers who could elaborate on and further disseminate information about
the different certification schemes that exist on the market.
Acknowledgments This study is based on research funded by the German Ministry of Education
and Research within the Socio-Ecological Research (SÖF) Project Social, Environmental and
Economic Dimensions of Sustainable Energy Consumption in Residential Buildings
(seco@home), contract 01UV0710. This work is also related to the Sciex Programme (project
code: 12.163) and the Swiss Competence Center for Energy Research–Competence Center for
Research in Energy, Society and Transition (SCCER–CREST). The authors would also like to
thank the three anonymous reviewers of the journal Ecological Economics for their valuable
comments and remarks on the original article.
References
Arkesteijn, K., & Oerlemans, L. (2005). The early adoption of green power by Dutch households:
An empirical exploration of factors influencing the early adoption of green electricity for
domestic purposes. Energy Policy, 33(2), 183–196.
Arnold, D. (2011). The influence of live events on sustainable consumption. Bachelor Thesis,
University of St. Gallen.
BMU (Federal ministry for the environment nature conservation and nuclear safety). (2009).
Electricity from renewable energy sources—What does it cost? Accessed July 30, 2016, from
http://www.bmu.de/fileadmin/bmu-import/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/brochure_electric
ity_costs_bf.pdf.
BMWI (Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy). (2013). Accessed July 30, 2016, from
http://www.bmwi.de/DE/Themen/Energie/Energietraeger/erneuerbare-energien,did¼20918.
html.
Burkhalter, A., Kaenzig, J., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2009). Kundenpräferenzen für leistungsrelevante
Attribute von Stromprodukten. Zeitschrift f€ ur Energiewirtschaft, 33(2), 161–172.
Cai, Y. X., Deilami, I., & Train, K. (1998). Customer retention in a competitive power market:
Analysis of a double-bounded plus follow-ups questionnaire. Energy Journal, 19(2), 191–215.
Clark, C. F., Kotchen, M. J., & Moore, M. R. (2003). Internal and external influences on
pro-environmental behavior: Participation in a green electricity program. Journal of Environ-
mental Psychology, 23(3), 237–246.
Clausen, J. (2008). Betreiber von Solarwärmeanlagen und Ökostromkunden in der Klimaschutzregion
Hannover. Forschungsprojekt Wenke 2. Accessed July 30, 2016, from http://www.borderstep.de/
pdf/P-Clausen-Betreiber_von_Solarwaermeanlagen_und_Oekostromkunden_in_der_Klimaschut
zregion_Hannover-2008.pdf.
DeSarbo, W. S., Ramaswamy, V., & Cohen, S. H. (1995). Market segmentation with choice-based
conjoint analysis. Marketing Letters, 6(2), 137–147.
Diaz-Rainey, I., & Ashton, J. K. (2011). Profiling potential green electricity tariff adopters: Green
consumerism as an environmental policy tool? Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(7),
456–470.
Ek, K., & Soderholm, P. (2008). Norms and economic motivation in the Swedish green electricity
market. Ecological Economics, 68(1–2), 169–182.
Ewing, G., & Sarig€ ollü, E. (2000). Assessing consumer preferences for clean-fuel vehicles: A
discrete choice experiment. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19(1), 106–118.
Gerpott, T. J., & Mahmudova, I. (2010). Determinants of green electricity adoption among
residential customers in Germany. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 34(4), 464–473.
Goett, A., Hudson, K., & Train, K. (2000). Customers’ choice among retail energy suppliers: The
willingness-to-pay for service attributes. Energy Journal, 21(4), 1–28.
Gossling, S., Kunkel, T., Schumacher, K., Heck, N., Birkemeyer, J., Froese, J., Naber, N., &
Schliermann, E. (2005). A target group-specific approach to “green” power retailing: Students
as consumers of renewable energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 9(1), 69–83.
Green, P. E. (1977). A new approach to market segmentation. Business Horizons, 20, 61–73.
Hansla, A., Gamble, A., Juliusson, A., & Gärling, T. (2008). Psychological determinants of
attitude towards and willingness to pay for green electricity. Energy Policy, 36(2), 768–774.
Kaenzig, J., Heinzle, S. L., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2013). Whatever the customer wants, the
customer gets? Exploring the gap between consumer preferences and default electricity
products in Germany. Energy Policy, 53, 311–322.
Kotchen, M. J., & Moore, M. R. (2007). Private provision of environmental public goods:
Household participation in green-electricity programs. Journal of Environmental Economics
and Management, 53(1), 1–16.
Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2006). Marketing management (12th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ.:
Prentice Hall.
Litvine, D., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2011). Helping “light green” consumers walk the talk: Results of
a behavioral intervention survey in the Swiss electricity market. Ecological Economics, 70(3),
462–474.
Madlener, R., & Stagl, S. (2005). Sustainability-guided promotion of renewable electricity gener-
ation. Ecological Economics, 53(2), 147–167.
Mattes, A. (2012). Potentiale für Ökostrom in Deutschland—Verbraucherpräferenzen und
Investitionsverhalten der Energieversorger. Accessed July 30, 2016, from http://www.diw-
econ.de/de/downloads/DIWecon_HSE_Oekostrom.pdf.
Orme, B. (2010). Getting started with conjoint analysis: Strategies for product design and pricing
research. Madison: Sawtooth Software.
Rose, S. K., Clark, J., Poe, C. L., Rondeau, D., & Schulze, W. D. (2002). The private provision of
public goods: Tests of a provision point mechanism for funding green power programs.
Resource and Energy Economics, 24, 131–155.
Rowlands, I. H., Scott, D., & Parker, P. (2003). Consumers and green electricity: Profiling
potential purchasers. Business Strategy and the Environment, 12(1), 36–48.
Sagebiel, J., Müller, J. R., & Rommel, J. (2014). Are consumers willing to pay more for electricity
from cooperatives? Results from an online choice experiment in Germany. Energy Research &
Social Science, 2, 90–101.
Sammer, K., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2006). The influence of eco-labelling on consumer behaviour—
Results of a discrete choice analysis for washing machines. Business Strategy and the Envi-
ronment, 15, 185–199.
Sawtooth Software. (2004). The CBC Latent Class: Version 3.0. Technical Paper. Sequim, WA:
Sawtooth Software.
Straughan, R. D., & Roberts, J. A. (1999). Environmental segmentation alternatives: A look at green
consumer behavior in the new millenium. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16(6), 558–575.
Tabi, A., Hille, S. L., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2014). What makes people seal the green power deal?—
A customer segmentation based on choice experiments in Germany. Ecological Economics,
107, 206–215.
€
Villiger, A., Wüstenhagen, R., & Meyer, A. (2000). Jenseits der Oko-Nische. Basel: Birkhäuser
Verlag AG.
Wind, Y. (1978). Issue and advances in segmentation research. Journal of Marketing Research,
15, 317–37.
Wiser, R. H. (2007). Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable
energy: A comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles. Ecological Economics, 62
(3–4), 419–432.
Zarnikau, J. (2003). Consumer demand for ‘green power’ and energy efficiency. Energy Policy, 31
(15), 1661–1672.
Stefanie Lena Hille is currently assistant professor at the

Institute for Economy and the Environment at the Univer-
sity of St. Gallen in Switzerland. In her research she focuses
on how to use concepts and theories from marketing, psy-
chology and behavioral economics to better understand
consumer behavior related to energy consumption and
mobility. She acquired a PhD title in Marketing from the
University of St. Gallen in Switzerland in 2012.
Andrea Tabi earned a PhD in Environmental economics

and is currently doing a second PhD in ecology at the
Department of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental
Studies at the University of Zurich. Before, she was a
PostDoc at the Institute of Economy and the Environment
at the University of St. Gallen where she focused her
research on choice modeling regarding the hydropower
expansion in Switzerland. She investigated the economic,
environmental, and social impacts of the expansion of
hydropower production projected by the Swiss Energy
Strategy 2050, as well as the economic trade-offs and
preferences of Swiss population for the alternative hydro-
power expansion scenarios.
Rolf W€ ustenhagen is the Good Energies Professor for

Management of Renewable Energies at the University of
St. Gallen. He completed his PhD in 2000 on marketing
green electricity—from niche to mass market. His work on
decision-making of energy consumers and investors has
been published in leading academic journals. He has held
visiting faculty positions at University of British Columbia,
Copenhagen Business School, National University
Singapore and Tel Aviv University. Since 2010, he is the
Director of the University of St. Gallen’s Executive Educa-
tion Programme on Renewable Energy Management
(REM-HSG).
Introducing Green Electricity as the Default
Option
Sylviane Chassot, Rolf Wüstenhagen, Nicole Fahr, and Peter Graf
Abstract
One of the key challenges in marketing (green) electricity is overcoming cus-
tomer inertia. Recent insights from behavioral economics suggest that in the
context of long-term decision making, this leads to a situation where consumers
do not make the choices that are best for society or, in fact, their own long-term
interest. Nudging consumers to more environmentally friendly decisions by
introducing a green default may be an effective way out of this dilemma. This
chapter reports on marketing research that was done with customers of a Swiss
electric utility ahead of the introduction of a green default, combining eye
tracking, choice tasks, and interviews. We also report on the successful imple-
mentation of the research results, which led to a significant increase in revenues
available for investment in new renewable energy facilities, and discuss
implications for communication, marketing, and organizational dynamics.
Keywords
Green default • Behavioral economics • Inertia • Eye tracking • Green power
marketing
This chapter is a translated and revised version of an article first published in German: Chassot, S,
Wüstenhagen, R, Fahr, N, Graf, P. 2013. Wenn das grüne Produkt zum Standard wird. Wie ein
Energieversorger seinen Kunden die Verhaltensänderung einfach macht. Organisations
Entwicklung, 3, 80–87.
S. Chassot • R. Wüstenhagen (*) • N. Fahr
Institute for Economy and the Environment, Good Energies Chair for Management of Renewable
Energies, University of St. Gallen, Tigerbergstr. 2, 9000 St. Gallen, Switzerland
e-mail: rolf.wuestenhagen@unisg.ch
P. Graf
St.Galler Stadtwerke, Vadianstrasse 8, 9001 St. Gallen, Switzerland

110 S. Chassot et al.
1 Introduction
The energy industry is undergoing fundamental change. The shift from the use of
fossil and nuclear to renewable energy has been evolving over decades due to
stricter climate laws and the political risks of dependence on oil and gas exporters.
Since the nuclear accident in Japan in March 2011, the so-called energy transition
has received enough attention from the public to proceed more decisively. Accord-
ingly, the governments of Germany and Switzerland have decided to phase out
nuclear power.1
For an electric utility company (EUC) this decision represents a major strategic
challenge in the form of a call for fundamental change. So far, EUCs have provided
their customers with an electricity mix consisting of the Swiss average of around
40 % nuclear energy. They are now required to replace this 40 % by investing in
renewable energy and energy efficiency and, where necessary, using natural gas and
electricity imports. Another challenge also presents itself at the other end of the
value chain of an EUC: such renewable electricity must not only be produced and
transported but also sold to customers in the form of appealing products. The case
study described in this chapter highlights what must be considered a decisive step in
the promotion of a more ecologically friendly product and describes how customers
react to changes of the default product. The findings described herein also apply to
the effects of “green defaults” in other industries.
According to a green electricity survey conducted in 2010, 507 of 730 Swiss
EUCs offered electricity products generated from renewable sources, and around
15 % of customers used these products before the Fukushima accident. Sales of
power products containing renewable energy amounted to 10 % of the total. The
market share of renewable energy has been growing since its initiation in 1998 and
with accelerating speed since 2011. In 2014, already 25 % of residential customers
ordered or were nudged into a renewable energy tariff that was more expensive than
the cheapest option. However, these eco-friendly products consist mainly of hydro-
power. Sales of new renewable energies, such as wind power or solar photovoltaics,
remain below 2 %. If the nuclear phase-out is not to endanger climate protection
targets, sales of new renewable energy must increase significantly. At this point,
many utilities face a contradiction: On the one hand, decisions about the promotion
of renewable energy have been made at the political level, and green energy is,
according to surveys, desired by customers. On the other hand, customers’ initiative
to switch their electricity consumption to renewables remains rather low. What can
companies do in this situation?
1
Whereas Germany has decided to phase out all nuclear power plants by 2022, the precise date in
Switzerland is still subject to debate.
Introducing Green Electricity as the Default Option 111
1.1 If the Mountain Won’t Come to Muhammad. . .
. . . then Muhammad must go to the mountain. In 2006, the Zurich municipal utility
followed this principle by defining a green power product as the standard product
for electricity customers who had not explicitly chosen a different option. Follow-
ing its initiative, a dozen other Swiss utilities were inspired by the idea. Other
utilities, however, shy away from taking this approach, often out of concern that
they will come across to customers as patronizing and risk upsetting them.
The fact that preselection has a major impact on customer behavior is often
illustrated using the example of organ donation. In Austria, the organ donation rate
is 99 %; in Germany, it is 12 %. In Austria, the preselected option is pro donation,
which means that the deceased are generally considered to have accepted that their
organs will be donated in the event of their death, so relatives must actively disagree
if they want to avoid organ donation (an opt-out system). Conversely, Germany
follows an opt-in system. In the literature on consumer behavior, this is referred to
as the decision architecture of a choice situation, where preselection is one of the
most important elements, also known as the default option. American behavioral
economists Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein refer to this situation as a “nudge,”
which helps customers take wise decisions in complex choice situations (Thaler and
Sunstein 2008).
1.2 Is the Green Default Legitimate?
According to a survey about renewable energies and green power (Hübner et al.
2012), customer laziness (inertia) is the key obstacle to switching to a different
energy source. One study participant explained:
“That’s called having a completion block. Writing to-do lists that one executes diligently, to
then always transfer a few small items to the next list. And so some things are simply always
pushed ahead. I hate paperwork. For me, it always grows, until I someday sit down and do
it. And then there are a few things that I always put on top of the pile, but they disappear
under the new submissions. So, I think this is actually quite normal. The outrage that I feel
in-between, obviously, is not enough to make me sit down and do it all.” (media profes-
sional interviewed by Hübner et al. 2012)
The people this description applies to would benefit if their EUC switched their
standard offering to a greener energy mix. Actively coming to a decision and
selecting a new product requires more effort from customers than accepting a
default. According to Sunstein and Reisch (2014), this is one reason why consumers
often accept the default option. Moreover, two further obstacles are mentioned in
the literature when it comes to switching:
• Customers perceive the “standard option” as being the one recommended by

authorities, and they therefore accept it as the correct course of action;
• Psychologists have demonstrated the endowment effect. What one “owns” (the
current option) is automatically of more (subjective) value than what one does
not possess (a potential option).
Besides convenience and price, the free-rider problem is another obstacle to self-
initiating customer changes when it comes to selecting an electricity tariff. Some
customers are not willing to pay more for green energy as long as a majority
consumes the cheaper mix; making the right choice in the wrong system is an
option pursued only by a niche of ecologically concerned consumers (Karsten and
Reisch 2008). Thus, making the sustainable product option the default is, according
to Karsten and Reisch (2008), acceptable if the surcharge to customers is in a
favorable ratio to social benefits of a more environmentally friendly product.
1.3 Examples from Other Industries
There are countless examples of companies steering the everyday decisions of their
customers and employees by means of smart decision architecture—decisions by
customers, as well as decisions by their own employees. An example of the latter
relates to the paper consumption of an American university. When the default
setting for university printers was changed from single- to double-sided, paper
consumption dropped by 44 % (or 4650 trees) (Sunstein and Reisch 2014). This is
an example of an environmentally friendly, cost-saving default change.
Another example comes from the American retirement scheme. Participation in
the 401(k) pension plan is voluntary in the USA. Originally, employees paid into a
company’s own pension fund if they had made an explicit decision to do so. The
result was low participation rates in many pension funds. In the late 1990s, an
increasing number of pension funds adopted the principle of automatic participation
in pension plans (opt out), leading to an immediate increase in participation rates by
35 % (Madrian and Shea 2001).
2 Case Study
2.1 Initial Situation of St. Galler Stadtwerke
In a referendum in November 2010, the population of the city of St. Gallen voted in
favor of phasing out nuclear energy by 2050—a clear mandate for the St. Galler
Stadtwerke (sgsw), which until then had been providing their customers with a
default mix (Basispower) consisting of around 50 % nuclear power, 40 % hydro-
power, 8 % electricity from waste incineration, 1 % fossil fuels, and 1 % new
renewables. In addition, all electricity customers were offered the opportunity to
choose their preferred mix of hydropower, wind, and solar (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1 sgsw electricity product range in 2011 (before default change)
Facts about St. Galler Stadtwerke
• Municipal utility,100 % owned by the city of St. Gallen;

• Supplier and distribution grid operator for electricity, gas, heat, and water;
• Currently investing in fiber-optic telecommunications network;
• 260 employees, operating revenue of 204 million CHF, 503 GWh electric-
ity sales, 58 million CHF investments (2015);
• Shareholder of SN Energie AG, together with six other regional energy
supply companies operating hydropower plants, and holding shares in
Swiss and French nuclear power plants;
• Public referendum in city of St. Gallen on 28 November 2010: 60 %
majority in favor of nuclear phase-out by 2050 (assuming supply security
guaranteed).
After the referendum, Peter Graf, head of Energy and Marketing at sgsw, faced
the question of how to transform the will of the people into a new product range.
One solution was to expand the marketing of existing renewable energy offerings.
Various attempts have been made to do this since the launch of green power
products in 2000, from postal mail to telephone sales, but without a satisfactory
level of cost efficiency.
The other approach was to replace the existing standard product with a greener
power product. But would this be demanding too much from customers, and would
selling a more expensive product turn out to be a counterproductive strategy in an
electricity market that was soon to be liberalized also for retail customers?
2.2 Referendum in 2010, Research Project in 2011
Shortly after the referendum in November 2010, sgsw was approached by the
University of St. Gallen offering to collaborate in a research project to investigate
the acceptance of so-called green defaults. The study was designed with the
following objectives in mind:
• To find out what customers specifically look at when browsing flyers or the
Internet for power products;
• to test whether a default would be accepted, even if it was not the cheapest
product available.
2.2.1 Eye Tracking: Identifying Customer Requirements

To investigate what customers look for with electricity products (mix, price, label,
endorsement by sgsw), an eye-tracking study was conducted. Using this research
method, participants sit in front of a computer viewing an image—in this case a
Website displaying power products—while a camera below the computer (the eye
tracker) tracks the viewer’s eye movements (see box for more information about the
methodology). At the beginning of an eye-tracking session, participants were
instructed as follows:
Imagine you want to order a new electricity tariff. Below, one after another, you will be
shown various advertisements, each with four power products. Take your time and decide
which of the four products you prefer. Once you have made your choice, please use the left
mouse button to click on one of the four selection boxes to confirm your choice.
The subjects were shown nine websites with (hypothetical) sgsw power products
on display. In Fig. 2 (first column), three of the nine websites are presented. The
presentation of the price and preselection (default) varied in each case. The default
was illustrated in three different ways:
• The preselected option was ticked in advance,

• The preselected option and the policy-endorsed power option matched,
• The policy endorsement supported a more ecological option than the preselected
option.
Additionally, the effect of different ways to present energy costs was examined.
The cost of electricity tariffs was
• Not mentioned,
• Expressed in Swiss Centimes (Rp.) per kilowatt hour,
• Expressed in Swiss Francs per month, based on the average paid by a St. Gallen
household.
Fig. 2 Tariff choice in experiment by type of default
The description of the energy mix of the four power products was kept the same
for all nine images; each of the nine dummy webpages showed
• A “gray power” mix with nuclear energy, coal, and energy from unknown
sources (“Budget Power”);
• One with hydro, other renewables, and natural gas (“St. Gallen Power”);
• A purely renewable product (“St. Gallen Power Plus”); and
• A premium renewable product with only hydropwoer, solar power, waste incin-
eration, and geothermal energy (“St. Gallen Power Premium”).
To validate the results of the eye-tracking study, participants also filled out a
questionnaire about renewable energy. The study duration for each participant was
30–45 min. In May 2011, 66 sgsw customers participated in the study, 58 of whom
were deemed valid for inclusion in the eye-tracking analysis. Selection of
participants was carried out using quota sampling so that the sample was represen-
tative for the St. Gallen population in terms of age and gender.
Eye Tracking as a Method of Market Research

Eye tracking is a research method used to measure individuals’ visual behav-
ior. Using eye tracking (recording), the researcher can determine what
elements of a visual stimulus, such as an advertisement, capture the attention
of the viewer and what the consumer is reflecting on (the so-called eye-mind
hypothesis). Thus, eye tracking makes it possible to assess which elements of
a promotional stimulus are being observed (in our case, energy mix, price,
default system, design), for how long, and what role they play in decision
making (Djamasbi et al. 2008, p. 308f.; Poole and Ball, 2005, p. 3f).
2.2.2 Results of Research Project

Based on the recorded eye movements, the study was able to show what St. Gallen’s
electricity customers pay attention to when observing a description of electricity
tariffs. All eye movements of each participant were recorded, and the individual-
level information was condensed into a so-called heat map. The darker a spot on the
heat map, the longer this spot was looked at on average (Fig. 2, column 2).
Result 1 Electricity Mix and Price Are Considered the Longest

In Fig. 2, column 2, it can be seen from the heat maps that
• The least ecological electricity tariff itself received almost no attention, even
though it was cheaper than the default option;
• The description of the electricity mix and the price were looked at for the
longest;
• The preselected option received less attention than the option with a policy
endorsement.
Result 2 Policy Endorsement Has a Greater Influence Than Ticking a Preselected

Option
Figure 2, column 3, illustrates the choices of the 58 participants. (Since the effect
of the default is of interest here, differences due to price presentation are not
discussed further.)
In row 1 (preselection only), the majority opted for the product that was slightly
more expensive than the default option. The product that was cheaper than the
default option was virtually neglected. One participant who consistently chose the
cheapest product explained his choice using the aforementioned free-rider attitude:
he would not pay more for electricity from renewable sources as long as some other
customers would not do so either.
In Fig. 2, row 2, a policy endorsement supporting the second cheapest item was
added to the ticked preselection option, which was then selected more frequently
than in the setting without the policy endorsement.
In the version with the preselection option for St. Gallen Power and a policy
endorsement for the more expensive St. Gallen Power Plus (row 3), the majority of
choices were guided by the policy endorsement, not the ticked preselection option.
In summary, use of a ticked preselection option seldom results in the selection of
a less ecological product, but in many cases, the product selected is of higher
ecological value than the option preselected with a tick. However, the policy
endorsement had an even greater impact on tariff choice: some study participants
switched their choice from St. Gallen Power to St. Gallen Power Plus if the policy
endorsement supported the latter. However, the policy endorsement also acted in
the opposite direction: some participants who had chosen St. Gallen Power Plus
without reading a policy endorsement switched their choice to the less environmen-
tally friendly St. Gallen Power when this was the policy endorsement.
Result 3 Preselection, Not Paternalism

In the questionnaire following the eye-tracking experiment, participants were
asked to reflect on their attitude toward electricity tariffs and choice behavior.
Table 1 shows that only 4 out of 66 respondents would feel patronized if the
standard mix was an eco-product. The majority of respondents rated the green
default as a good or very good idea. No one feared having a supply problem
following a switch to green electricity as the standard mix.
2.3 Implementation in 2012
In May 2011, Federal Councilor Leuthard communicated about the nuclear phase-
out at the national level. It was clear at that time that the vote of November 2010 by
the city of St. Gallen was not an outlier but an important proof of public support for
sgsw to play a leading role in the energy transition. Simultaneously with the
development of the new marketing concept, sgsw specified how to generate more
renewable energy and feed it into the grid. The case illustrates that a true change of
default involves not only the marketing department but also the supply side of
an EUC.
Following presentation of the results of the eye-tracking study in June 2011,
sgsw’s concern that customers would feel patronized by a green default was
empirically refuted and the joint research project of the University of St. Gallen
and sgsw was completed.
In January 2012, the tariff change was implemented and four new products were
created. All customers were informed that from now on they would receive the new
St. Gallen Power Basic product unless they actively chose another product (former
green electricity customers continued to receive a higher-quality product).
Table 1 Acceptance of green defaults (frequency of answers)

If the standard mix were affordable green electricity, not the current base power option, which of
the following statements would most closely describe your opinion?
I would like it very much 13
I would like it because many people would otherwise take no action about changing their 42
energy mix, even if they were open to it
The change would be acceptable because there would still be the oportunity to opt for a 7
different mix later
I feel patronized by the preselection option 4
There would be a supply problem if everyone chose to accept the preselection option 0
To prepare sgsw customers for their new electricity product, an extensive

communication campaign was implemented in the city of St. Gallen by the end of
2011. Details about the revision of the tariff and product were communicated via
posters, brochures, a dedicated website, newspaper advertisements, personal
mailings, and at the movies.
2.4 Customer Feedback and Financial Implications
At the St. Gallen Forum for Management of Renewable Energies in March 2012,
Peter Graf reported on customer responses regarding the default change. While
there were some negative reactions, which were partly political (“The energy
transition must be brought about politically and globally!” or “Nuclear power
phase-out, no thanks”) or specifically directed at the presentation of the new
products and details of the communications of sgsw (“exactly why the product is
more expensive is not clear”), the majority of customers responded positively to the
switch, as illustrated by comments like “Congratulations on this initiative, I am
happy with it,” as well as specific feedback about the related brochures and the
forms of communication (“It’s great that each and every person is able to decide
which electricity source they will support!”).
Quantitative customer response confirmed the results of the study carried out
by the University of St. Gallen: The vast majority accepted the new default.
Among residential customers, only 10 % switched back to the cheaper
“nuclear power mix” (Fig. 3), whereas a larger share of the generally more
price-sensitive corporate customers opted to switch back. Across all customer
segments, the nuclear power mix accounted for 43 % of all electricity sold
following the introduction of the new product range, while the new default
product, St. Gallen Power Basic, accounts for 42 %, St. Gallen Power Eco
13 %, and St. Gallen Power Eco Plus 2 %.
Fig. 3 Market share of new

electricity products after
default change (number of
customers, residential,
consuming less than
48 MWh p.a., March 2012)
The price increase for the new default of roughly 1 Rp./kWh resulted in
additional revenues of around 4 million CHF per year. sgsw uses this additional
income to invest in renewable power generation, in particular in photovoltaics and
wind power.
3 Conclusion
The example shows:
• When implementing a tariff revision, details matter. Careful planning of the

product design in terms of product name, price display, colors, and mix is
worthwhile;
• Widespread communication of easy-to-understand information about any pro-
posed changes is crucial to avoid negative customer reactions—and increasing
the enthusiasm of other customer segments about changes;
• After years of marketing efforts, sgsw was able to increase its share of green
electricity customers from zero to more than 10 %. But by means of the default
change, an additional 80 % of private customers were brought on board. Thus, a
new default is much more effective at enhancing the diffusion of renewable
electricity than incremental changes to the status quo.
Close cooperation between energy procurement, distribution networks, and

marketing is also a prerequisite for success. Accordingly, launching a new product
range is not just a marketing exercise but an issue of organizational development
for EUCs.
sgsw’s new default product still contains 30 % nuclear power, which will be
replaced by renewable energy sources over the coming years—using sgsw’s own
production facilities as much as possible. The road to completely withdrawing from
nuclear energy is long, but the end should be reached by 2035, according to the
energy concept of the city of St. Gallen.
The same applies to the entire Swiss energy landscape. Some utilities are well
advanced when it comes to implementing a new, forward-looking energy strategy,
while others face a more difficult situation from the start or doubt the long-term
viability of current political developments. The example of sgsw shows that it may
well be worthwhile striving to overcome existing doubts by proactively
participating in the fundamental changes in the Swiss energy industry and
employing competences that have been built up over decades.
From a customer perspective, the introduction of the green default solves two
problems at once: If every customer gets a green power product by default, EUCs
have the answer to the free-rider argument, while customers, in return, have one less
task to transfer from one to-do list to another. The St. Gallen case study shows how
differences between changing customer preferences and a traditional product range
can be aligned by redefining the standard offer. sgsw’s example shows that
implementing a green default can create positive organizational dynamics vis-à-vis
both internal and external stakeholders.
References
Djamasbi, S., Tullis, T., Siegel, M., Capozzo, D., Groezinger, R., & Ng, F. (2008). Generation Y &
web design: Usability through eye tracking. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Americas Confer-
ence on Information Systems (AMCIS), 1–11.
Hübner, G., Müller, M., R€ohr, U., Vinz, D., K€osters, J., Simon, A., Wüstenhagen, R., Chassot, S.,
Roser, A., Gruber, E., Gebhardt, T., Frahm, B.-J. & Alber, G. (2012). Erneuerbare Energien
und Ökostrom—zielgruppenspezifische Kommunikationsstrategien. In Modul I–Analyse der
Konsumentenentscheidungen f€ €
ur Erneuerbare Energien und Okostrom. Abschlussbericht zum
BMU-Verbundprojekt (FKZ: 0325107).
Karsten, J., & Reisch, L. A. (2008). Sustainability policy and the law. German Policy Studies, 4(1),
45–66.
Madrian, B. C., & Shea, D. F. (2001). The power of suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) participation and
savings behavior. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(4), 1149–1187.
Poole, A., & Ball, L. J. (2005). Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research.
In C. Ghaoui (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human computer interaction (pp. 211–219). Pennsylvania:
IGI Global.
Sunstein, C., & Reisch, L. A. (2014). Automatically green: Behavioral economics and environ-
mental protection. Harvard Environmental Law Review, 38(1), 127–158.
Thaler, R., & Sunstein, C. (2008). Nudge. The politics of libertarian paternalism. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
Sylviane Chassot holds a MSc in Economics from the

University of Lausanne and a PhD in International Affairs
and Political Economy from the University of St. Gallen.
Her thesis adopted an economic psychology perspective to
investigate renewable energy decision-making of
consumers and investors. In 2012–2013, she was a Swiss
National Science Foundation research fellow at the Depart-
ment of Psychology, Norwegian University of Science and
Technology, Trondheim. She now works as a journalist in
Zurich.
Rolf W€ ustenhagen is the Good Energies Professor for

Management of Renewable Energies at the University of
St. Gallen. He completed his PhD in 2000 on marketing
green electricity—from niche to mass market. His work on
decision-making of energy consumers and investors has
been published in leading academic journals. He has held
visiting faculty positions at University of British Columbia,
Copenhagen Business School, National University
Singapore and Tel Aviv University. Since 2010, he is the
Director of the University of St. Gallen’s Executive Educa-
tion Programme on Renewable Energy Management
(REM-HSG).
Nicole Fahr holds a Master’s degree in Marketing,

Services and Communication Management from the Uni-
versity of St. Gallen. Her award-winning M.A. thesis
investigated the influence of green defaults on electricity
consumer behavior. She is now working with one of
Switzerland’s leading retail companies.
Peter Graf is the Head of Energy and Marketing and a

member of the board of directors of Sankt Galler Stadtwerke
(sgsw), a mid-sized Swiss municipal utility. During his
tenure with sgsw, starting in 2002, he has been responsible
for several initiatives in product development and marketing
of green electricity, including introduction of the company’s
green default in 2012.
Certificates in Germany’s Renewable
Energy Market
Uwe Leprich, Patrick Hoffmann, and Martin Luxenburger
Abstract
• What green energy labels are of current significance in Germany’s voluntary

green power market and how do they differ from one another?
• What is the environmental co-benefit of a green power product, and what role
does this play when marketing the product?
• What is the difference between a generation certification and product
certification?
This chapter answers these and other questions relating to green power certifi-
cation and provides an overview of the certificates currently available. The
different approaches to certification are set out in a structured manner and their
key features clearly summarized. The chapter explains the purpose of each
certificate, describes the relevant issuing and certifying bodies, and details the
requirements that the certificate holder or their products must meet. Particular
focus is placed on assessing the marketability of the individual certificates in terms
of the brand awareness of a specific label and its environmental requirements.
The chapter also identifies current challenges in the German green power
market, introduces some of the new green power concepts, and assesses them in
terms of feasibility. The range of mechanisms covered by these new concepts
This chapter is a partial translation of the article “Zertifikate im Markt der erneuerbaren Energien
in Deutschland” from the original German. This version focuses, in abbreviated form, on the
market for green power (eco-gas and biofuels are dropped in this translated version). In reaction to
recent developments, Sect. 4, was revised and updated.
U. Leprich • P. Hoffmann (*) • M. Luxenburger
IZES gGmbH, Altenkesseler Str. 17, 66115 Saarbrücken, Germany
e-mail: leprich@izes.de; hoffmann@izes.de; Luxenburger@izes.de

124 U. Leprich et al.
includes retiring carbon credits, the specific demands on system integration

when dealing with fluctuating renewable energy sources, and the marketing of
locally generated green power.
The chapter concludes with an outlook on the immediate future of green
power certification schemes.
Keywords
Green power • Green electricity • Guarantee of origin • Certificate • Label
1 Introduction
The focus of this chapter is on certificates for retail products in the field of
renewable energy, such as green power or green gas, as well as their generation.
These certificates can, for example, take the form of quality labels, which are
narrowly defined according to the RAL definition of word or design marks (RAL
2014), or of product standards, which are awarded, for example, by the TÜV
companies in Germany and which use the logo of the certifying organization.
Guarantees of origin (GOs) are also included in the considerations.
With the exception of the latter case, the certificates have in common that they
define specific criteria in the form of requirements concerning quality and condi-
tion. Product providers must demonstrate that these requirements are met by the
products if they want to obtain the relevant certificate. These requirements need not
only apply to the concrete product but can also deal with its production or parts of
the preceding value chain.
The certificates also share the commonality of being used as a quality seal and
therefore fulfill two basic functions, which differ in relevance for the involved
market participants (Manta 2012):
– For prospective customers, certificates serve as a source of information

concerning the quality of a specific product: the requirements defined for the
certificate assign specific attributes to the electricity and gas products, which are
homogeneous products (commodities) in principle. This leads to differentiation
and allows prospective customers to select product specifications based on their
personal preferences. At the same time, the certificate provides credible proof of
the specific attributes that are important to customers.
– Producers and suppliers use them as a marketing tool in the context of their
marketing strategies: from the supplier perspective, gas and electricity
products—which in their basic form are commodities and can only compete
on the basis of price—obtain specific attributes through certification that are
relevant for marketing.
Certificates in Germany’s Renewable Energy Market 125
The aim of this chapter is to provide a structured discussion of the various

approaches to certification and to summarize the defining features. Each certificate
considered will be analyzed with regard to the following aspects:
– Aim of certificate
– Requirements
– Provider and certification agent
– Target audience
– Assessment of marketability
The chapter initially addresses production and product certification. All

certificates reviewed can be categorized under these two headings. Next, current
challenges and possible solutions are discussed. The certificates discussed in this
chapter are used in the German market, one of the leading markets for renewable
energy.
1.1 Additional Ecological Benefit
The description of the certificates specifically focuses on the additional ecological

benefit. As it turns out, this aspect is of particular importance concerning the
differentiation and assessment of the renewable energy certificates. In what follows,
the term additional ecological benefit captures all ecological contributions that are
generated by the certified product and that exceed the requirement of purely
renewable production. In general, this contribution is provided by the criterion of
“additionality,” which is understood as the provision of new facilities for the
generation of renewable energy that are not compensated based on the relevant
regime of government subsidies (Renewable Energy Act, Erneuerbare-Energien-
Gesetz, EEG) (EnergieVision 2014a). Such an additional ecological benefit can also
be demonstrated with other contributions, which will be discussed in more detail
later in the chapter.
1.2 Marketability
When assessing the marketability of renewable energy certificates it must be kept in

mind that the awareness level of end customers1 is partially still very limited. In
particular, those certificates on the market for green power that call for increased
ecological demands on products and manufacturing are still not known to many
electricity customers. According to a survey by DIW econ (2012) only every tenth
respondent is familiar with quality labels for green power such as the ok-power
label or the green power label. And even a large share of the consumers of green
1
The business-to-business segment is not considered here.
power are not familiar with the labels for it: only every fourth respondent indicated
knowing about the certificates. The green power certificates of the TÜV
corporations, in contrast, are much better known, even though they differ substan-
tially with regard to their criteria. A third of participant say they have already heard
about TÜV seals for green power, and among those who consume green power, half
of the survey participants are familiar with them (DIW econ 2012).
While this is certainly explained in part by the popularity of the institution
TÜV,2 it also shows that the demands of the labels, such as ecological criteria,
type of GO, or green power models, are not the only influence on the degree of
familiarity. Instead, labels are only one of several attributes of green power used by
customers who must make a decision in favor or against a product. Among all the
attributes of green power considered by DIW econ, the feature “presence of quality
label” triggers the smallest willingness to pay among customers. More important
for the participants were the regional base of the utility as well as the fact that it
exclusively offers green power. Nonetheless, the study shows a statistically signifi-
cant willingness among customers to pay an extra fee between 1 and 2 Eurocent per
kilowatt-hour for certified green power products (DIW econ 2012).
The importance of the quality labels should therefore not be neglected from a
marketing perspective. A look at comparable markets, where customers’ ecological
lifestyle serves as the primary parameter, underscores the importance of product
certificates. Janssen and Hamm (2011), for example, show that customers’ willing-
ness to pay increases significantly in line with the demands of the labels used in the
organic food sector once these labels have achieved a relevant degree of promi-
nence. And the survey cited earlier also allows the conclusion that the relevance of
ecological demands goes up for customers as their familiarity with the specific
certificates increases (DIW econ 2012).
It can thus be concluded that both the ecological demands of the certificates and
their familiarity are the key variables influencing their marketability. For that
reason, the marketing value of the certificates described in this chapter was assessed
along these two dimensions, as shown in Fig. 1.
As an example, the fictitious label A in the graph would be given a high
marketability value since it combines a high degree of familiarity with strict
ecological criteria.
Label B is also very familiar but only requires basic criteria with regard to the
ecological demands. Its marketability value is thus only average, but it could be
increased by tightening the ecological criteria.
Label C also only refers to fundamental ecological criteria in its basic version
but offers different specifications, which can be selected by the customer. Since the
label is not well known, its marketability, depending on the specification chosen,
falls between low and medium.
2
The “Technischer Überwachungsverein TÜV” (Technical Supervisory Association) is a leading
technical service company in Germany, well known in Germany for providing (prescribed)
periodical car inspection services.
Fig. 1 Dimensions of
marketability
In this manner, it was possible to position all certificates considered concerning

their marketability. This positioning reveals information about possible actions
needed to positively influence the marketing potential.
If a certificate could not be assessed, this was noted in the text.
2 Certification of Green Power Generation
The certificates discussed in what follows only relate to the electricity generation
process. They either fulfill the obligation with regard to the GO in line with EU
Directive 2009/28/EG or serve as the basis for product certificates, which are
discussed in the following chapter. Unlike the labels discussed in the following
chapter, these certificates cannot be categorized as business-to-customer quality
labels. Nonetheless, they can be used in a similar fashion when marketing products
for the end user. This requires an appropriate positioning in the context of
marketing.
From the perspective of the producer, two types of certificates can be distin-
guished in the green power market: GOs in the sense of Directive 2009/28/EC and
freely developed generation certificates.
GOs attest to the producers of electricity from regenerative sources where and in
what manner the electricity was generated. In Germany, GOs are only awarded for
electricity that is not remunerated in the context of the EEG, but sold explicitly as
renewable energy. In this process, the GO assures that the ecological attributes of
the electrical power cannot be used more than once in the marketing process. They
are invalidated for labeling purposes following a sale (UBA 2013c). GOs can be
traded (a) jointly with or (b) separately from an actual electricity delivery. In case a,
the dealer buys the corresponding volume of regenerative electricity from the plant
operator in addition to the GO. In case b, he purchases the GO from a supplier and a
corresponding volume of electricity from another source and sells the combination
as green power to end customers.
Green power products on the voluntary green power market in Germany are based
primarily on quantities of green power that are produced in other European countries
and are traded in the form of GOs. For that reason, such products are highly
marketable in the business-to-business segment. For end customers, GOs only play
an indirect role, since those customers base their buying decisions not on the certifi-
cate but on the relevant attributes of the specific green power product being offered.
An assessment of the marketing perspectives just described is still of interest.
Providers always have the option to explicitly mention GOs in the context of their
product marketing, even though this may not be their original purpose.
GOs constitute the most basic criterion for green power: regenerative generation
without a demand for any additional ecological benefit (Sect. 3.1). For that reason
and due to the very low degree of familiarity, the marketing value from the
perspective of the end customer must be considered as low. This assessment does
not hold for the production certificates by TÜV Süd, since these are not original
GOs in the sense of Directive 2009/28/EC. They were created by TÜV Süd as the
foundation for the marketing of the corresponding product certificates developed by
TÜV Süd and must therefore be considered separately (Sect. 2.1.2).
2.1 Guarantee of Origin”
2.1.1 Purpose and Requirement of Certificate

GOs are traded in the European Energy Certificate System (EECS). A GO states that
1 MW-h of regenerative energy was produced and fed into the grid. Since GOs on the
basis of Directive 2009/28/EG only serve to label electrical power, they are not
quality certifications in the proper meaning of the term (UBA 2013a). The informa-
tion contained is limited to specific identification data for the production site, the
amount of energy, possibly information concerning subsidies received as well as the
issue date, issuing country, and identification number of the certificate (UBA 2013b).
In some European countries it is possible to supplement the GO with a note about
the fulfillment of labeling criteria if a provider of a green power label is registered with
the Association of Issuing Bodies (AIB) as an Independent Criteria Scheme (ICS).
The introduction of the EECS, the GO registry, and the corresponding trading with
GOs is based on the implementation of EU Directives 2001/77/EG and 2009/28/EG.
The EECS thus became mandatory and is a form of legal regulation (AIB 2014b). Since
the start of the GO registry at the Federal Environmental Agency on 1 January 2013,
every electricity company in Germany that sells green power to its customers is required
to use GOs in the context of labeling electricity (European Energy Exchange 2013a).3
Since June 2013, GOs have been offered for trading at the European Energy
Exchange (EEX). Traded are GOs from water power of the Scandinavian region
(Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark) and the alpine region (Switzerland,
Austria, and Germany), as well as GOs for wind power from the North Sea region
(Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Belgium) (European Energy Exchange
2013b).
2.1.2 Provider/Certification Agent

GOs are managed and issued by the responsible bodies in the respective countries,
the so-called issuing bodies. The European institutions that manage a registry of
GOs are organized in the AIB. This nonprofit society domiciled in Belgium has also
developed the rules for the EECS and provides the registries with the so-called hub
as an electronic interface. This electronic interface makes it possible to transfer
GOs across countries (AIB 2014c). Since 2013, Germany has also operated a
national GO registry, housed by the Federal Environmental Agency, and has
participated in the system as a user of the hub. However, it is not a member of
the AIB (UBA 2014).
2.2 Erzeugung EE (TÜV Süd Industrie Service GmbH)
2.2.1 Aim of Certificate

With its own standard, CMS 83, TÜV Süd certifies the generation of electricity
from renewable energy sources (Erzeugung EE). The certificates can be used as the
basis for issuing country-specific GOs that conform to EU regulations, but they
mainly serve as the basis for the proprietary product certificates of TÜV Süd
(Sect. 3.1.3).
The certification always references concrete sources of energy generation and
guarantees to the buyer that the electrical power is generated from renewable
sources of energy. The electrical energy generated is usually purchased by
intermediaries, but also directly by major consumers. The optional additional
modules Erzeugung EE+ and Erzeugung EEneu furthermore certify that additional
requirements are met with regard to the simultaneity of consumption and the
generation of the renewable energy as well as the age of the facility (TÜV Süd
2013a).
3
The EECS has almost completely replaced the outdated Renewable Energy Certificate System
(RECS). Across Europe only five countries continue to accept RECS certificates during a transi-
tion period. As the German registry of GOs is coming into effect, it is no longer possible to use
RECS certificates in Germany.
2.2.2 Requirements
The standard Erzeugung EE is broken down into general, specific and optional
requirements. The general requirements relate to the alignment of the corporate
policy with the goal of climate protection, a correct communication of the certifi-
cation, and the organization needed to supply all required information and docu-
mentation. Key elements of the specific requirements include the clear traceability
of the regenerative energy source and the registration of the certified quantity of
electricity based on the net principle. It is given by the net production provided to
the grid minus the self-consumption, which was obtained externally, the pumping
work of pumped-storage power plants, and all long-term delivery obligations,
which explicitly call for delivery from or for the certified power plants (such as
compensation in kind/restitution/servitude and deliveries from concessions) (TÜV
Süd 2013a).
Optional requirements are defined for the assurance of promises of production
and performance (module Erzeugung EE+) as well as the proof of a new installa-
tion (module Erzeugung EEneu). As a consequence, the recipient of the certificate
must be in a position to always satisfy a predefined schedule with the certified pool
of installations or to demonstrate that the production capacities are new installations
in the sense of the standards of TÜV Süd. Both optional modules allow the delivery
of the certified electrical energy in the form of tradable certificates (TÜV Süd
2013a).

The certification agent klima und energie of TÜV Süd Industrie Service GmbH is in
charge of the certification. The recipient of the certificate names an audit represen-
tative, who provides the necessary information.
2.2.4 Target Audience and Marketability

The certification of generation based on the TÜV Süd standard plays a major role,
especially in connection with the optional additional modules for demonstrating the
origin of the green power product certificate EE01 and EE02 of TÜV Süd
(Sect. 3.1.3).
Assuming that all TÜV Süd product certificates are based on the certification of
generation presented here, according to the Green Power Survey 2013 of the journal
Energie & Management4 that currently approximately 12 % of all providers of
green power use Erzeugung EE.
4
The results of the survey reflect only a portion of the entire market for green power. Of
824 suppliers contacted, 261 companies provided data. A total of around 470 different rates for
green power were analyzed in the survey. Based on the assessment of the editors of Energie &
Management, these data still represent the most important participants in the market for green
power (Energie & Management 2013).
3 Certification of Green Power Products
While the previous chapter focused on the certification of energy generation, this
chapter deals with certificates for green power products sold on the market.
All certificates described in what follows—also called green power labels—are
based on the green power models established by the green power industry. They
describe different ways to provide additional incentives for the expansion of
capacities to generate renewable energy that go beyond the EEG. A description
of the models that are currently available on the market can be found in the info box
“Green power models.”
The criteria covered by a green power label are not necessarily the only ones that
the electricity product possesses. Several utilities offer green power products for
which they define their own criteria in addition to the ecological requirements of the
label used. These self-imposed standards are expected to enhance the ecological
effect of products (e.g. Greenpeace Energy 2012).
In addition, all green power certificates—with the exception of the label Gr€uner
Strom—allow the providers to select among different levels of rigor in line with
their individual aspirations. In particular, the two TÜV corporations allow a large
degree of choice. This freedom to choose, which is convenient to the provider, also
implies that a single label can represent different ecological quality claims. Thus
customers cannot simply assume that two green power offerings with the same
green power label will necessarily fulfill the same requirements. As a consequence,
their active involvement is required to arrive at an informed decision.
Table 1 provides a comprehensive overview of the green power labels analyzed.
Table 1 Overview of product certificates in the field of green power

Assessment
Certifying Green power Degree of Ecological of
Certificate agent model familiarity requirements marketability
Grüner Grüner Strom Fund model Low High Medium
Strom Label e.V. with provider
label component
ok-power EnergieVision Depending on Low High Medium
label e.V. specification
+ independent provider, fund,
auditors or initiation
model
Produkt TÜV Süd Fund model High Medium to Medium to
EE01/ Industrie with provider (TÜV) high high
EE02 Service GmbH component/
provider model
with fund
component
Geprüfter TÜV Nord Depending on High Low to high Medium to
Ökostrom Cert GmbH specification (TÜV) high
provider model
and fund model
with provider
component
Green Power Models
1. Provider model
On the basis of the provider model, a provider of green power
guarantees to its customers the provision of electricity from regenerative
production. A widely used version of the provider model states that a
specified portion of the electricity delivered must be from new plants.
Normally this covers plants that are not older than 6 years. This is intended
to provide an incentive to investors and operators of renewable energy
plants to expand the production capacities for renewable energy (IZES
2014b). Since the physical delivery of a specific quantity of green power to
customers via the public network is technically impossible, the utility
needs to prove that it has sufficient ownership rights in green power
attributes (Öko-Institut 2007). This proof relies on the rules for the label-
ing of electrical power based on GOs, which can be traded and exchanged
independently of the physical delivery of electricity quantities
(EU-Directive 2009/28/EG).
2. Fund model
The fund model charges a specific premium on the price for the end
user. The margins obtained in this manner are collected in a fund that is
used for investments in new regenerative production facilities that cannot
be operated profitably under the EEG (Hamburg Institut Consulting 2013).
Electricity delivered on the basis of the fund model does not have to be
based on physical or accounting-based (per certificate of origin) renewable
energy production. If electricity from renewable sources is delivered, this
is considered to be a combination of the fund model and the provider
model (Öko-Institut 2007).
3. Initiation model
In the case of electricity delivery on the basis of the initiation model,
suppliers provide their customers with electricity that is—as in the case of
the fund model—not necessarily based on regenerative production. The
additional ecological benefit is supposed to be derived from the specific
activity of the utility in initiating plants based on renewable generation.
The use of existing means of refinancing such as the EEG is allowed. This
is supposed to bridge the gap between government-supported renewable
energy and the voluntary green power market (IZES 2014b). Additional
requirements can be included with the help of green power labels. As an
example, utilities that want to be certified according to the criteria of the
ok-power label must demonstrate that 60 % of the quantities of electricity
delivered are generated in a regenerative fashion from plants that were
self-initiated and provided to the grid (Öko-Institut 2014).
3.1 Grüner Strom Label (Grüner Strom Label e.V.)

The Gr€ uner Strom Label e.V. (GSL e.V.) certifies green power products on the
basis of the fund model with a provider component. Products that are to be certified
according to the criteria of GSL e.V. are required to contain defined quantities of
renewable energies. In addition, a specified amount is channeled toward the setup of
regenerative facilities or measures to increase energy efficiency and infrastructure
measures aimed at systems integration of renewable energy (Grüner Strom Label
2014a).
3.1.2 Requirements
At the moment one certificate is offered, the Gr€
uner Strom Label Gold (GSL Gold).
In addition to different requirements for the supplying companies, the following
fundamental demands must be met by the electricity product in question (Grüner
Strom Label 2012a):
Exclusive provision of regenerative electricity as well as the investment of a specified

amount in projects in the field of renewable energy.
The certificates only allow the combined delivery of electricity. Not accepted are
products where the source of the GO and the source of the physical delivery differ.
To obtain a certification, the offering company needs to provide GSL e.V. with the
required information, which is then validated by GSL e.V. If the criteria are met, the
label is awarded for the remainder of the certification period (Grüner Strom Label
2014b). Upon completion of the first period and subsequently every other year,
documents forming the basis of an evaluation by an independent scientific institute
need to be submitted. In the next step, GSL e.V. makes a decision about the renewal
of the certification (Grüner Strom Label 2014c).

GSL e.V. is supported by seven nonprofit organizations, including the European
Association for Renewable Energy (Eurosolar), three environmental organizations
(Bund für Umwelt- und Naturschutz BUND, Naturschutzbund Germany NABU,
Deutscher Naturschutzring DNR), a consumer advocacy group (Verbraucher Ini-
tiative), and the German chapter of International Physicians for the Prevention of
Nuclear War/ Physicians for Social Responsibility and Responsibility for Peace and
Sustainability, an initiative of scientists in the natural sciences.

Among German customers of green power, the Gr€ uner Strom Label has a high
degree of familiarity and popularity. Based on the Green Power Survey 2013,
approximately 29 % of all green power providers include the Gr€
uner Strom Label
in their offering (Energie & Management 2013). Outside of this group, the label
is known only to a few electricity customers (DIW econ 2012). This, combined
with the strict ecological requirements, leads to an assessment of medium

marketability.
3.2 Ok-power Label (EnergieVision e.V.)

According to the information provided by EnergieVision e.V., the ok-power label
aims at transparency and consumer protection in the market for green power. The
aim of the criteria is to give the assurance that all green power offerings that carry
the label provide a guaranteed benefit to the environment. This is to be accom-
plished specifically via the contractually agreed provision of electricity from
renewable sources and a contribution to the expansion of electricity generation
from renewable energy (EnergieVision 2014a).
3.2.2 Requirements
In the opinion of EnergieVision e.V., the contractually agreed provision of green
power without an expansion of electricity generation from renewable energies is
not sufficient to provide a benefit to the environment. For that reason, additional
criteria were defined for the ok-power label, and two of them are highlighted as the
decisive elements. The first element is the demand to minimize the negative
ecological consequences of the production facilities, for example by providing
fish ladders for hydropower plants. The second element is the independent valida-
tion of the information provided by the electricity companies during the course of
the certification as well as the correct information of the customers concerning their
products.
The certification can be implemented for all three relevant types of green power
models (Sect. 3.1). For each model, specific requirements are in place, for example
concerning the type and age structure of the production facilities in the provider
model (EnergieVision 2014a).

The ok-power label is awarded by the association EnergieVision e.V. The associa-
tion is supported jointly by Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen (a consumer
advocacy group) and the Öko-Institut (an institute for ecological research). The
certification process mainly consists of five steps. Following an assessment of the
suitability of the green power offering on the basis of the criteria of the label, a
contract is concluded between the provider of the green power and EnergieVision
e.V. In the next step, an independent expert is tasked with thoroughly assessing the
green power offering and making sure it aligns with the criteria. The certificate of
the assessor is submitted to EnergieVision e.V. and checked again. The information
is reviewed again at the end of the calendar year (EnergieVision 2014b).

The certification ok-power specifically targets all suppliers of green power that
utilize one of the three business models—initiation model, provider model, and
fund model. Just like the Gr€uner Strom label, the ok-power label is very well known
in the green power arena, and 32 % of all suppliers of green power offer products
that carry the label (Energie & Management 2013). As in the case of the label
Gr€uner Strom this degree of popularity does not carry over to the majority of
electricity customers. In light of the demanding ecological requirements, the mar-
ketability is thus again assessed as medium.
3.3 Produkt EE01/EE02 (TÜV Süd Industrie Service GmbH)
3.3.1 Aim of the Certificate

TÜV Süd currently certifies green power products with its proprietary standard
CMS 80 in two versions: Produkt EE01 (provider model with optional fund model
component) and Produkt EE02 (fund model with a provider model component).
Both product certifications aim at supporting the maintenance and expansion of
renewable energy sources through the commitment of all certified producers to
climate protection and an expansion of renewable energy. With the motive of
unburdening transregional transport lines, both certifications allow the addition of
the optional module “regional focus,” which certifies minimum shares of regional
and renewable energy generation.
3.3.2 Requirements
In two separate criteria lists (EE01, EE02) TÜV Süd outlines the requirements for
the certification of the green power product. The criteria lists are structured
according to general requirements (corporate policy, communication, and organi-
zation), specific requirements, and the optional additional module “regional focus.”
Both certificates (EE01 and EE02) contain the requirement that the green power
must be based fully on renewable energy sources and can be traced back to uniquely
identifiable sources. With its introduction, the proof of the electricity source must
be based on the GO register. A minimum of two thirds of the possible positive price
difference of the green power product not justified by additional costs of including
renewable energy must be directed at advancing climate protection. If the “regional
focus” module is selected, a minimum share from regional electricity sources of
60 % of annual consumption must be satisfied. Further requirements are presented
separately for the EE01 and EE02 products.
– EE01: For the energy balance a period of at most 12 months is in effect for
renewable production. Concerning the age of the installations it must be assured
that 30 % of production facilities are at most 36 months old at the time the
certificates are initially granted. Overall, an installation can be kept in the
portfolio for 120 months after it begins operation. As an option to satisfy the
share of new installations, the certified company can elect to make a contribution
per kilowatt hour of electricity sold into a support fund.
– EE02: The primary requirement follows from the simultaneous provision and
utilization of green power. Depending on the customary time units of the
national energy sector, the shortest possible unit must be selected.5 An additional
price premium to support new installations is optional.
In general, the criteria lists provide several options to introduce additional and
possibly stricter criteria. In that sense, the catalogs can be seen as basic
requirements, which can be made more challenging based on the wishes of the
distributors of green electricity.

The certification agent “klima und energie” of TÜV Süd Industrie Service GmbH
certifies the adherence to the published list of criteria. Auditors are trained by
employees of TÜV Süd and participate in an annual exchange of experiences.

The proprietary standard CMS 80 is a product certification that generally targets
electricity providers that want to sell green power products (TÜV Süd 2013c, d).
Additional optional requirements can be used by the certified party to increase the
value of its products. Consequently, the ecological requirements of this label are
ranked as medium to high, depending on the individual structure chosen. The high
degree of familiarity of TÜV Süd stems originally from the certification of
automobiles or the testing of fairground rides; a close association with the electric-
ity sector can be assumed (DIW econ 2012). Since the awareness level can thus also
be ranked highly, the marketability of the green power products can be assessed as
medium to high. At the moment, the two labels are represented in the portfolios of
about 18 % of the relevant providers who participated in the survey (Energie &
Management 2013).
3.4 €
Geprüfter Okostrom (TÜV Nord Cert GmbH)
3.4.1 Aim of the Certificate

The directives for certification based on the proprietary standard A75-S026-1
describe the criteria for awarding the label Gepr€ €
ufter Okostrom (¼ certified green
power) by TÜV Nord Cert GmbH. According to TÜV Nord, the certification is
based on the wishes of consumers who demand a larger contribution of the
providers of green power toward strengthening and supporting regenerative pro-
duction facilities as well as an increasing electricity share from newer regenerative
5
Quarter hours in Germany.
production facilities. The standard also allows the alternative certification of a

provider or fund model.
3.4.2 Requirements
The list of criteria for the various standards distinguishes requirements concerning
proof of production and origin, accounting treatment, and marketing of the certified
electricity product, as well as customer communications. It is pointed out explicitly
that the criteria that are listed and certified are mainly minimum requirements and
can be augmented in line with customer demands.
The electricity that is used in the context of the certified electricity product must
be generated fully from renewable energy sources (according to the definition of the
national legislators). The proof of the electricity source must be provided via the
GO register. An additional contribution to deepening the market for renewable
energy generation is demonstrated either via a share of 33 % of the electricity
provided from installations that are no older than 6 years or via an investment in
the addition of new capacities for regenerative electricity generation. The balance
between electricity consumption and delivery must be achieved after at most
12 months. All steps of the certified electricity between generation and consumer
must be documented without exception; if certificates are used for this documenta-
tion, the route of the certificates is checked for transparency.

Following a request by the customer, the certification process of TÜV-Nord Cert
GmbH involves five steps. To assess whether certification is possible in principle,
documents are checked initially. Next an audit is conducted on the premises of the
provider. This activity is documented in a report that is handed over to the head of
the certification unit for assessment and approval. In case of a positive decision, the
certificate is issued. Two more monitoring audits take place during the 3-year
contract term.

TÜV Nord identifies companies that produce green electricity from renewable
energy sources and market green power products to end customers or other utilities
as the target audience for this voluntary certification (TÜV Süd 2013c). In line with
the products of TÜV Süd, the recipient of the certificate can specifically increase
the value of its own products via additional and optional requirements.
As with TÜV Süd, the degree of familiarity of TÜV Nord can also be assessed as
high. Owing only to the low degree of ecological requirements in the minimum
version, this valuation metric again falls into the range between low and high,
depending on the individual specification chosen. In the overall assessment, a
medium to high marketability can be assumed.
In the green power industry, the certified green power label Gepr€ €
ufter Okostrom
of TÜV-Nord is about as widespread as the Gr€ uner Strom Label (29 % of green
power offerings). But it must also be pointed out that the label in some cases
certifies products that additionally carry the ok-power label or Gr€

uner Strom Label
(Energie & Management 2013).
4 Current Challenges and Possible Solutions6
The German green power industry currently witnesses a crisis which can be
explained primarily by two factors: stagnating numbers of customers (Kübler
2014) and increased skepticism of customers concerning the actual ecological
benefit of the green power models offered (Hamburg Institut Consulting 2013).
The lack of customer growth can mainly be explained by the fact that more and
more traditional utilities are switching parts of their customer portfolios towards
green power without charging a premium for this offering. This is made possible by
the purchase of very inexpensive GOs abroad, which allows the “greening” of the
original gray electricity offering and its marketing as green power. Since these
types of green power products normally do not fulfill any additional ecological
requirements such as sourcing from new installations, the purchased GOs mostly
come from old hydro power plants, which were built at the time without any
concern for green power (IZES 2014b).
It can nonetheless be assumed that a part of those existing customers who have
already contemplated the thought of switching to a provider of green power will
reconsider their wish to switch and take their business elsewhere. The missing
ecological benefit—as already described in Sect. 1—matters only for a small
number of customers.
The traditional providers of green power that previously benefitted from the
willingness of ecologically conscious electricity customers to switch offerings are
losing some of their potential clients as a result of this strategy—about 20 %
according to estimates (K€opke 2013).
The willingness of customers to switch is additionally reduced by the fact that
even green power products with strict ecological criteria are increasingly being
viewed skeptically (Kübler 2014). On the one hand, this is due to the fact that the
dubious benefit of “greening” gray electricity has presented the entire industry with
a credibility problem. On the other hand, the criticism is based on the fact that the
initially expected effect on new renewable energy capacities based on the demand
for green power massively lagged behind expectations. Especially in comparison to
the success of the EEG, the impact remains very small (Hamburg Institut Consult-
ing 2013).
6
In reaction to current developments, this chapter was reworked and modified compared
to the German version. Discussions of the ecological electricity market model and the customer
market model were deleted since both proposed models have lost relevance. The treatment
of the green power market model, which was developed from the previous two models,
was updated based on current developments. Newly added was the model of regional green
power labeling, which was recently (March 2016) introduced into by the German Federal Ministry
for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWi) in the context of a position paper (BMWi 2015a).
This was realized in the industry, and as a consequence, different modeling

approaches to leaving the crisis behind are currently being discussed. Three of these
approaches are comprehensively summarized in the following chapters. While the
first model targets an added ecological benefit via the European emissions trading
mechanism, the other models focus primarily on the systems integration of renew-
able energy or on regional linkages of electricity offerings as additional ecological
benefits.
4.1 Climate Electricity Model
The climate electricity model is based on an approach presented in late 2013 by

IZES GmbH. The idea is to directly use consumers’ willingness to pay, which
exceeds the price of an average conventional product from fossil resources for the
purchase of certificates in the European emissions trading mechanism.
The model was developed against the background of a price increase for these
emission certificates that have massively disappointed expectations. The steady
reduction in the availability of certificates has therefore not materialized and no or
only a few positive effects for climate protection in the form of emission reductions
have been accomplished. Because of the numerous freely distributed certificates,
surpluses from the economic crisis, and significant external credits for lowering
emissions during the second trading phase (2008–2012), only moderate price
increases can be expected over the long term. The climate electricity model is
supposed to act as a corrective measure.
A provider would have to structure his products in such a way that the customer,
similar to the fund model (Sect. 3.1), pays a defined premium per unit, which is used
exclusively for the purchase of emission certificates from the EU emissions trading
mechanism. The certificates purchased will be put aside and invalidated in the
official register of the emissions trading authority. Thus these certificates would no
longer correspond to CO2 emissions, and the available quantity in the emissions
trading mechanism would be reduced for all participants. With this product,
consumers are given an opportunity to directly intervene in the market-based
instrument of emissions trading and, thus, to accomplish a reduction in the
emissions cap that is independent of political targets.
The difference to compensation products7 lies in the fact that the resulting
ecological effect does not target a compensation of energy use but instead makes
a contribution to the successive improvement of the effects of emissions trading.
The stronger these effects are, the greater is the ecological contribution that follows
from an increase in the CO2 price owing to the increased scarcity of the certificates.
7
Compensation products are offered mainly in the market for ecological gas. They involve the
purchase and cancellation of an amount of emissions rights that corresponds to the emissions
volume generated during the use of the (natural gas) product.
Fundamentally, a coupling with emissions trading in line with the model is

possible for every product. In the opinion of IZES, products such as electricity
and gas, which are characterized by a particularly high level of CO2 emissions
during production or consumption and are consumed in large quantities, are partic-
ularly suitable for the implementation of the idea. This is justified both by the
expected effects and by marketing considerations (IZES 2013).
4.2 Green Power Market Model
The model is a combination and refinement of two previous suggestions for green
power models (ecological electricity market model and customer market model8),
which were rendered obsolete with the publication of the green power market
model (GMM). In 2014, Naturstrom AG, Greenpeace Energy, Elektrizitätswerke
Sch€onau (EWS), Clean Energy Sourcing, and MVV Energie AG jointly spoke out
in favor of GMM and jointly advertise it on a common homepage.9
The goal and aim of the GMM is to create the possibility of using green power
that was generated on the basis of the EEG for the direct delivery to the end
customer in a manner that is clearly traceable—without violating the prohibition
of dual use (§80 Renewable Energy Act 2014). The GMM can be interpreted as a
supplement to the market premium model of the EEG. The additional ecological
benefit of the green power market model stems from the systems integration of
renewable energy via electricity distribution.
This is supposed to become possible via the option for the distributors to leave
the redistribution system of the EEG, as long as a defined minimum share of EEG
electricity is purchased directly and without support from the redistribution scheme
of the EEG from facility operators. The minimum shares of EEG electricity as well
as electricity from wind and photovoltaic installations are specifically based on the
current nationwide ratio of production and consumption by the end user subject to
levies.10 To maintain the cost neutrality of the electricity, which the utilities can
take into account when satisfying the minimum shares, the average EEG compen-
sation (the average cost of the total volume of the electricity subsidized via the EEG
system) must be paid. Differences due to the inclusion of EEG facilities with higher
8
The ecological electricity market model was presented jointly in early 2014 by Elektrizitätswerke
Sch€ onau (EWS), Greenpeace Energy and Naturstrom AG, three German pioneer providers of
green power. It specifically targeted ambitious providers of ecologically generated electricity.
Also early in 2014, Clean Energy Sourcing GmbH (CLENS) published a proposal for the “market
integration of electricity from renewable energy through incorporation into the competition for
customers” (in short, the customer market model). To assure topicality and comprehensiveness,
the two models are not discussed in more detail at this point.
9
www.gruenstrom-markt-modell.de
10
In contrast to the complete provision of the minimum share via the fluctuating generation of
renewable energy, as required in the ecological electricity market model, the requirement of the
customer market model (shares of controlled and fluctuating production) was adopted.
or lower compensation payments are settled between the utility and the Renewable
Energy Account or the responsible operator of the transmission grid. The fulfill-
ment of the minimum shares must be assured in the annual accounting. In addition,
a penalty payment (integration payment) was introduced in the amount of
2 Eurocent per kilowatt hour for those quantities of EEG electricity that could not
be integrated on the basis of quarter-hourly values. Distributors now have an
interest in avoiding these penalty payments, which leads to the search for forms
of flexible compensation that are as cost effective as possible. The remaining
surplus cover, which can be sold, for example, via the exchange or covered via
balancing energy and penalties, can be credited for the fulfillment of the annual
minimum shares. Since facility operators do not receive any payments from the
EEG transfer system, they should receive GOs for that electricity and be allowed to
sell it as electricity from renewable energy sources (CLENS 2014d, e).
In a letter from the Federal Minister of Economics and Energy to the German
Bundestag, the GMM was officially rejected by the responsible ministry in October
2015 (BMWi 2015b). This was received largely with disappointment by the green
power industry. The reason for the rejection was that the model was assessed to be
“presumably not cost-neutral, extremely complex and without relevant value added
for the energy sector.” Instead, the Ministry of Economics and Technology consid-
ered regional aspects to be more expedient for the acceptance of the further local
advancement of renewable energy and announced the development of a model for
the regional labeling of electricity that is supported by the EEG (BMWi). A
corresponding position paper was published in March 2016. The proposal for
regional green power labeling outlined in that paper is summarized in the following
section.
4.3 Regional Green Power Labeling
A position paper by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy
(BMWi), published in March 2016, outlines a model for the labeling of green power
that is supposed to enable participants to separately market electricity that was
subsidized on the basis of the EEG as green power (BMWi 2015a). In contrast to the
GMM, the focus is not on the systems integration of renewable energy, but rather on
its regional distribution, where producers and consumers must come from the same
area. In the opinion of the ministry, this new regional element of green power will
have a favorable effect on the acceptance of the energy revolution at home.
According to the proposal, regional proximity exists if the customer is located in
the same area where the production facility is situated. The paper discusses the
advantages and disadvantages of fixed regions (such as administrative districts) and
of moving regions, where a specific radius around the consumer is defined. In the
latter version, it would also be possible to include in the system foreign installations
that are situated close to the border; this assumes the inclusion of foreign
installations in the EEG.
The labeling of power as green is supposed to be implemented via so-called

regional certificates (which depend on the quantity of electricity provided). For
installations that want to participate in the labeling, it is issued and managed by the
German GO register. This GO register is also responsible for validating the regional
linkage.
In the assessment of the ministry, this regional labeling of green power
complements the electricity labeling that is currently in place. In addition to the
current determination of the mix of energy sources and the corresponding labeling
of electricity, a utility can now also label a certain share of the electricity as
regional.
Trading of regional certificates is supposed to be possible along the contractual
delivery chain, and the attributes of the electricity can only be acquired jointly with
electricity delivery.
Installations that comply with the EEG might be able to earn additional revenue
from marketing the aspect of regional production. These revenues are expected to
benefit the customer, who is paying the EEG surcharge, and not the distributers:
installations that offer tenders11 can price the aspect of regional production in their
bids and will thus be placed more favorably in the process. For installations that do
not participate in the tender process, the position paper suggests a reduction of the
market premium by 0.1 Eurocent per kilowatt hour. In the assessment of the
ministry, both versions will provide relief to the surcharge account of the EEG.
A detailed draft of the regional certification of green energy as well as the
evaluation of the conformity with European law are still outstanding at the time
of writing (March 2016).
4.4 Closing Assessment and Outlook
As described in Sect. 1, the additional ecological benefit is an important aspect for

the success, also with regard to marketing, of an electricity product. The previously
presented modeling approaches offer new and, in some respects, quite different
starting points for the generation of such an additional benefit. Especially as the
design moves beyond incentives for capacity expansion that are hard to quantify,
these products could make an important contribution as the industry struggles to
overcome the current period of stagnation.
In the case of the climate electricity model, the effectiveness mainly depends on
the agenda for the continuation of the European emissions trading scheme (ETS).
Since the current trading period, which ends in 2020, is characterized by an
expected excess of certificates of 2–2.8 billion, it is very questionable whether a
product that is structured along these lines can already have a significant effect in
the short run (Neuhoff and Schopp 2013).
11
The determination of the market premium will most likely commence in 2017 and will be based
exclusively on a tender procedure.
However, the approach looks promising as we approach the fourth trading

period, which starts in 2021. Its concrete structure remains hard to assess. A key
question relates to the continued use of certificates from emission reduction
products in the ETS. In addition, it must be determined to what degree the planned
market stability reserve in the ETS would work against the mechanism of the
climate electricity model. Based on the current discussion and proposals, the aim
of the reserve is to maintain stability in the quantity of certificates that are auctioned
off in a range between 400 and 833 million (European Commission 2014). Should it
be implemented as currently discussed, the anticipated effect of a climate electricity
product would be reduced significantly.
Prior to the negative assessment by the German Federal Ministry for Economic
Affairs and Energy, hopes that the GMM would be implemented were based on
the power to issue ordinances of the German EEG from 2014. It makes it possible
to issue an ordinance that allows for the implementation of the GMM and
concretely addresses the implementation of “a system for the direct marketing of
electricity from renewable energy sources,” where the electricity can be labeled as
“electricity from renewable energy sources” (Bundesregierung 2014). The clear
rejection of the GMM by the Ministry of Economics and Technology has made it
clear that the implementation of the model or the ordinance are a distant object at
the moment.
The trend currently appears to be moving in the direction of regional marketing
instead. With the model concept for the regional labeling of green power, the
Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWi) has identified the
regional aspect as the most important issue (BMWi 2015a) and is pursuing an
agenda. The design of a regional green power label is also covered by the previ-
ously mentioned power to issue ordinances under the EEG.
Whether the currently discussed models will contribute to a further diversifica-
tion or even a repositioning of the green power industry will thus become apparent
in the near future. What is certain, however, is this: There will be completely new
and, in some instances, complex requirements for the structuring of future
certificates.
References
AIB. (2014a). Certification FAQ—Are there certificates for all types of electricity? Accessed June
25, 2014, from http://www.aib-net.org/portal/page/portal/AIB_HOME/CERTIFICATION/C_
FAQ/Types_of_certificate.
AIB. (2014b). Certificates supported. Accessed June 26, 2014, from http://www.aib-net.org/portal/
page/portal/AIB_HOME/CERTIFICATION/Types_certificate.
AIB. (2014c). Accessed July 27, 2014, from http://www.aib-net.org/portal/page/portal/AIB_
HOME.
AIB. (2014d). Accessed September 12, 2014, from http://www.aib-net.org/portal/page/portal/
AIB_HOME/FACTS/Market%20Information/Accepted_certificates.
BMWi. (2015a). Regionale Grünstromkennzeichung. Eckpunktepapier. Accessed March 21, 2016,

from http://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Redaktion/PDF/P-R/regionale-gruenstromkennzeichnung-
eckpunktepapier,property¼pdf,bereich¼bmwi,sprache¼de,rwb¼true.pdf.
BMWi. (2015b). Schreiben des deutschen Wirtschaftsministers Sigmar Gabriel an den deutschen
Bundestag. Berlin vom 13.10.2015. Accessed March 22, 2016, from http://images.klimaretter.info/
filestore/1/6/2/3/3_fab9aa3260714bd/16233_ff3794420982e3c.pdf?v¼2015-10-30+17:15:48.
Bundesregierung. (2014). Beschlussempfehlung und Bericht des Ausschusses für Wirtschaft und
Energie (9. Ausschuss). Drucksache 18/1891 vom 26.06.2014, Berlin.
CLENS. (2014a). Marktintegration von Strom aus Erneuerbaren Energien durch Einbeziehung in
den Wettbewerb um Kunden. Accessed July 09, 2014, from http://www.clens.eu/fileadmin/
Daten/Veroeffentlichungen/140211_Kundenmarktmodell_CLENS.pdf.
CLENS. (2014b). Echtzeitwälzung: Strom aus Erneuerbaren Energien in den Wettbewerb um
Kunden integrieren. Presentation slides 3. IZES Energiekongress, 12.03.2014. Saarbrücken.
CLENS. (2014c). Versorgung von Stromkunden mit Strom aus Erneuerbaren Energien. Presenta-
tion slides 4. MCC-Kongress Erneuerbare Energien, 06.05.2014, Berlin.
CLENS. (2014d). Das Grünstrommarktmodell—Vorschlag für ein optionales und kostenneutrales
Direktvermarktungsmodell zur Versorgung von Stromkunden. Accessed July 09, 2014, from
http://www.clens.eu/fileadmin/Daten/Veroeffentlichungen/Gruenstrommarktmodell_CLENS.
pdf.
CLENS. (2014e). Grünstrommarktmodell: EEG-Strom in den Wettbewerb um Stromkunden
integrieren. Accessed July 10, 2014, from http://www.clens.eu/fileadmin/Daten/
Veroeffentlichungen/Praes_Gruenstrommarktmodell_I.pdf.
DIW econ. (2012). Potentiale für Ökostrom in Deutschland. Accessed July 04, 2014, from http://
diw-econ.de/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/03/DIWecon_HSE_Oekostrom.pdf.
Energie & Management. (2013). Übersicht der Ökostromtarife in Deutschland. Auswertung der
jährlichen Ökostromumfrage der Fachzeitschrift. Energie & Management. Accessed July
04, 2014.
Energie & Management. (2015). E&M Powernews: Gabriel kippt Grünstrom-Marktmodell.
Accessed March 22, 2016, from http://www.clens.eu/fileadmin/Daten/Mediathek/
Pressespiegel/151020_EM-Gruenstrom-Marktmodell.pdf.
EnergieVision. (2014a). Kriterien für das Gütesiegel “ok-power”für Ökostrom. Accessed July
09, 2014, from http://www.ok-power.de/fileadmin/download/Kriterienkataloge/ok-power-
Kriterien_7-3_v2.pdf.
EnergieVision. (2014b). Für Energieversorger—Zertifizierungsablauf. Accessed July 09, 2014,
from http://www.ok-power.de/energieversorger/infos.html.
European Energy Exchange. (2013) Rahmenbedingungen für Herkunftsnachweise in Deutschland.
Accessed July 11, 2014, from http://cdn.eex.com/document/136091/Haendlerworkshop_
GoOs_DE.pdf.
European Energy Exchange. (2013b). Handel von Herkunftsnachweisen ab 06. June 2013 an der
EEX. Accessed June 25, 2014, from https://www.eex.com/de/about/newsroom/news-detail/
eex--handel-mit-herkunftsnachweisen-startet-am-6--juni/61016.
European Commission. (2014). Questions and answers on the proposed market stability reserve for
the EU emissions trading system. Accessed July 22, 2014, from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_MEMO-14-39_en.pdf.
Greenpeace Energy. (2012). Kriterien von Greenpeace für sauberen Strom. Accessed July
16, 2014, from http://www.greenpeace-energy.de/fileadmin/docs/zertifizierung/gp_kriterien.
pdf.
Grüner Strom Label. (2012a). Criteria 2012. Accessed July 20, 2016, from http://www.
gruenerstromlabel.de/fileadmin/dateien/PDF-Dokumente/GSL_Criteria_2012.pdf.
Grüner Strom Label. (2012b). Kriterienkatalog 2012. Accessed July 20, 2016, from http://www.
gruenerstromlabel.de/fileadmin/dateien/PDF-Dokumente/GSL_Criteria_2012.pdf.
Grüner Strom Label e.V. (2013). Erste Biogasprodukte erhalten Grünes Gas Label. Accessed July
02, 2014, from http://www.gruenerstromlabel.de/aktuelles/newsansicht/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]¼
154&cHash¼d7779129b55daf3aa756392553c43f89.
Grüner Strom Label. (2014a). Häufig gestellte Fragen (FAQ). Accessed July 02, 2014, from http://
www.gruenerstromlabel.de/faq/.
Grüner Strom Label. (2014b). Weg zur Zertifizierung. Accessed July 02, 2014, from http://www.
gruenerstromlabel.de/gruener-strom-label/fuer-energieversorger/weg-zur-zertifizierung/.
Grüner Strom Label. (2014c). Ablauf der Zertifizierung. Accessed July 02, 2014, from http://www.
gruenerstromlabel.de/gruener-strom-label/fuer-energieversorger/ablauf-der-zertifizierung/.
Hamburg Institut Consulting (2013) Weiterentwicklung des freiwilligen Ökostrommarktes.
Accessed June 30, 2014, from http://www.ok-power.de/uploads/media/Projektbericht_
Zukunft_fOEM_final_v2.pdf.
IFEU. (2013). Ökologische Bewertung von Ökogas-Produkten—Hintergrundpapier für den
EnergieVision e.V. Accessed July 04, 2014, from http://www.ok-power.de/uploads/media/
Hintergrundpapier_Oekogas-Produkte_01.pdf.
IZES. (2013). Verzahnung von Energievertrieb und Emissionshandel—Ein Vorschlag am Beispiel
“Klimastrom”. Accessed July 04, 2014, from http://www.izes.de/cms/upload/publikationen/
IZES_Diskussionspapier_Klimastrom.pdf.
IZES. (2014a). Netzwerk Elektromobilit€ at Rheinland-Pfalz—Modul 6a: Okostrom € f€
ur
Elektromobilit€ at. Saarbrücken: Im Auftrag des Ministeriums für Wirtschaft, Klimaschutz,
Energie und Landesplanung (MWKEL).
€
IZES. (2014b). Okostrom in Klimabilanzen. Saarbrücken: Im Auftrag des EnergieVision e.V.
IZES. (2014c). Netzwerk Elektromobilit€ €
at Rheinland-Pfalz—Okostrom f€
ur Elektromobilit€
at.
Saarbrücken: Im Auftrag des Ministeriums für Wirtschaft, Klimaschutz, Energie und
Landesplanung (MWKEL).
Janssen, M., & Hamm, U. (2011). Zahlungsbereitschaft und Verbraucherpräferenzen für Produkte
mit unterschiedlichen Öko-Zertifizierungszeichen. In G. Leithold, K. Becker, C. Brock,
S. Fischinger, A.-K. Spiegel, K. Spory, K.-P. Wilbois, & U. Williges (Eds.), Es geht ums
Ganze: Forschen im Dialog von Wissenschaft und Praxis Beitr€ age zur 11.
€
Wissenschaftstagung Okologischer Landbau, Justus-Liebig-Universit€ at Gießen, 15.-18
(pp. 279–280). Berlin: Verlag Dr. K€oster.
K€opke, R. (2013). Deutliche Abkühlung auf dem Ökostrommarkt. Energie & Management.
Accessed July 15, 2013, 9.
Kübler, K. (2014). Leistet man durch den Kauf von “Ökostrom”einen Beitrag zur Energiewende in
Deutschland? Energiewirtschaftliche Tagesfragen, 3(2014), 43–46.
LBD. (2014). Gutachten zur energiewirtschaftlichen Bewertung des Ökostrom-Markt-Modells.
Accessed July 3, 2014, from http://www.lbd.de/cms/pdf-gutachten-und-studien/1403-LBD-
Gutachten_Oekosstrom-Markt-Modell.pdf.
Manta, M. (2012). Bedeutung von G€ utesiegeln. Einfluss von Involvement auf die Bedeutung von
G€utezeichen im Produktbeurteilungsprozess (pp. 5–10). München: FGM-Verlag.
Neuhoff, K., & Schopp, A. (2013). Europäischer Emissionshandel: Durch Backloading Zeit für
Strukturreform gewinnen. DIW Wochenbericht Nr., 11, 3–11.
Öko-Institut. (2007). Green power labelling—Final Report from the project “Clean Energy
Network for Europe” (Clean-E). Accessed June 30, 2014, from http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/
1480/2007-230-en.pdf.
Öko-Institut. (2014). Zertifizierungsmodelle—Initiierungsmodell. Accessed June 30, 2014, from
http://www.ok-power.de/energieversorger/zertifizierungsmodelle.html.
Ökostrom-Online. (2014). RECS-Zertifikat. Accessed June 05 2014, from http://www.oekostrom-
online.com/recs-zertifikat.php.
RAL. (2014). Guidelines for quality marks. Accessed July 20, 2016, from http://www.ral-
guetezeichen.de/fileadmin/lib/pdf/guete/englisch/RAL-Guidelines_for_quality_marks_0808.pdf.
TÜV Nord. (2014c). Certifying Criteria for “Certified Eco Power” according to the TUV NORD
CERT Standard A75-S026-1. Accessed July 22, 2016.
TÜV Süd. (2013a). TÜV SÜD Standard CMS 83 (Version 08/2013) Zertifizierung der Erzeugung
von Strom aus Erneuerbaren Energien. Accessed June 10, 2014, from http://www.tuev-sued.
de/uploads/images/1332939911881816900083/generationee-e.pdf.
TÜV Süd. (2013b). Ökostrom-Zertifizierung von TÜV SÜD für EU-weiten Handel zugelassen.
Accessed June 10, 2014, from http://www.tuev-sued.de/tuev-sued-konzern/presse/
pressearchiv/oekostrom-zertifizierung-von-tuev-sued-fuer-eu-weiten-handel-zugelassen.
TÜV Süd. (2013c). TÜV SÜD Standard CMS 80 (Version 07/2013) Zertifizierung von
Stromprodukten aus Erneuerbaren Energien mit mindestens 30% Neuanlagenanteil (Produkt
EE01). Accessed July 20, 2016, from http://www.tuev-sued.de/uploads/images/
1338873780525196720762/ee01-e.pdf.
TÜV Süd. (2013d). TÜV SÜD Standard CMS 82 (Version 07/2013) Zertifizierung von
Stromprodukten aus Erneuerbaren Energien mit zeitgleicher Lieferung (Produkt EE02). Accessed
July 20, 2016, from http://www.tuev-sued.de/uploads/images/1338873773865501850299/ee02-e.
pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). EPA’s Green Power Partnership—Renewable
Energy Certificates. Accessed July 11, 2014, from http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/
documents/gpp_basics-recs.pdf.
UBA. (2013a). Was unterscheidet einen Herkunftsnachweis von einem Ökostromlabel? Accessed
June 25, 2014, from https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/service/uba-fragen/was-unterscheidet-
einen-herkunftsnachweis-von-einem.
UBA. (2013b). Welche Angaben enthält der Herkunftsnachweis? Accessed June 25, 2014, from http://
www.umweltbundesamt.de/service/uba-fragen/welche-angaben-enthaelt-der-herkunftsnachweis.
UBA. (2013c). Herkunftsnachweise sorgen für Durchblick im Ökostrommarkt. Accessed June
27, 2014, from http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/press/pd13-002_
herkunftsnachweise_ sorgen_fuer_durchblick_im_oekostrommarkt.pdf.
UBA. (2014). Personal inquiry by email and phone September 2014.
Uwe Leprich studied economics at the University of

Bielefeld and the University of Athens, Georgia, USA. In
1993 he graduated on the subject of “Least-cost Planning“
and from 1987 to 1995 was a research assistant in the energy
field of the Öko-Institut, Freiburg, and furthermore respon-
sible for energy policy in Hessian Ministry for Environment,
Energy and Federal Affairs. Since 1995 Uwe Leprich is
professor at the University of Technology and Economics
of the Saarland (HTW), responsible for Economic Policies
and Energy Systems in the department of Economics. In
1999 he was a co-founder of the IZES (Institute for Future
Energy Systems); scientific director of IZES since 2008.
From 2001 to 2002 he was expert member of the Enquête
Commission of the 14th German parliament for “sustainable
energy supply”. Since 2010 Alternate Board Member of the
Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER)
of the EU. Specialties: framework of the energy sectors with
main focus on liberalisation and regulation of the electricity sector; Instruments of national and
international energy and environmental policy; future actors and market roles in the regenerative
economy.
Patrick Hoffmann studied Industrial Engineering at the

Umweltcampus Birkenfeld of the University of Applied
Sciences Trier, specialisation field Environmental Planning.
From 2002 to 2008 he was marketing manager of
SilverCreations Software AG. Since 2008 he is research
assistant in the work field energy markets of the IZES
(Institute for Future Energy Systems) with main focus on
analysis of user groups in the field of energy efficiency
services. Furthermore he is project and consortium leader
of various energy-industry studies and research projects
focusing on issues such as energy efficiency, green electric-
ity, smart metering and electric mobility.
Martin Luxenburger studied industrial engineering at the

University of Technology and Economics of the Saarland
(HTW). He gained practical experience in the fields of
power plant location study and emissions trading at the
MVV Energie AG as well as accounting energy quantities
in the VSE Group. Since 2010 he is research assistant in the
work field energy markets of the IZES (Institute for Future
Energy Systems) as well as project and consortium leader of
energy related business and market processes, further devel-
opment of the energy-economic regulations (with focus on
renewable energies law), system and market integration of
renewable energies, business case development, energy
trade as well as system services.
Part II
Special Markets and New Business Models
Marketing of Biomethane
Carsten Herbes
Abstract
Biomethane is playing an important role in the transition to a sustainable energy
system. It is renewable and can be easily stored, and its availability can be
matched to times of peak demand. It benefits from an existing infrastructure for
transport, storage, and use, namely, the public gas grid, gas-based heating
systems in millions of private households, and a powerful fleet of compressed
natural gas (CNG) vehicles around the world. However, its marketing is com-
plex since biomethane serves four distinct markets: to generate power in com-
bined heat and power units, to heat private households and businesses, to fuel
CNG vehicles, and to supply material for the chemical industry. Each of these
markets has different competitors, legal frameworks, and customer requirements
to which biomethane providers must adapt their marketing mix and strategies.
To shed light on the factors involved in such marketing, we first look in this
chapter at the market development and regional distribution of biomethane
production as well as the value chain. We then analyze factors influencing the
different markets and the marketing mix of providers. Our analyses and
examples often focus on Germany because it has the largest and most developed
biomethane market in the world, but we also consider developments in other
European countries and around the world.
C. Herbes (*)
Institute for International Research on Sustainable Management and Renewable Energy,
Nuertingen-Geislingen University, Neckarsteige 6-10, 72622 Nuertingen, Germany
e-mail: carsten.herbes@hfwu.de

152 C. Herbes
Keywords
Biogas • Biomethane • Green gas • Marketing
1 Introduction: Market Development
Biogas is produced through the anaerobic digestion of organic material such as

manure, organic waste, or energy crops such as maize. Untreated biogas has a
methane content of 50–65 % and can be upgraded to biomethane via a purification
process. In the purification process, CO2 and other undesirable ingredients like H2S
are removed, and the gas is further compressed and odorized (Hahn et al. 2014).
Biomethane must comply with the standards for natural gas that prevail in the
public gas grid, standards that may differ according to the local gas operator.
Most biogas plants around the world use the biogas on site for generating
electricity in a combined heat and power (CHP) unit. However, a small but growing
number of them—367 out of 17,240 in Europe—(European Biogas Association
2016a, b) upgrade the biogas to biomethane, which is then fed into the public gas
grid or used as fuel for natural gas vehicles (NGVs).
In recent years, Europe, and especially Germany, has seen dynamic development
in the production and marketing of biomethane. By the end of 2014, 367 biomethane
plants were operating in Europe (Fig. 1), 178 of these in Germany (European
Biogas Association 2016b). The German plants alone accounted for an annual
production of 8.5 TWh of biomethane in 2015 (Dena 2015b). Outside Europe,
fewer plants are found. Only in the USA (25), Japan (6), and South Korea (5) does a
significant biomethane market exist (Thrän 2014, all figures end of 2012).
The dynamic growth in Germany (Fig. 2) has been fueled by an ambitious target
set in 2007 by the federal government, namely, to produce 6 billion ncbm of
biomethane by 2020 (Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation,
Building and Nuclear Safety 2011). To reach this target, the federal government
established subsidy programs to stimulate development of the industry. However,
with the 2014 reform of the German Renewable Energy Act (REA) came a massive
Fig. 1 Distribution of
biomethane plants in Europe, Germany
numbers per end of 2014,
total 367 (European Biogas Sweden
Association 2016b) UK
Switzerland
The Netherlands
Austria
Finland
France
Marketing of Biomethane 153
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Nov-15
Fig. 2 Number of biomethane plants in Germany, 2006–2015 (Dena 2015c; Herbes 2015)
lowering of feed-in tariffs (FITs) for biomethane-fueled CHP units, effectively

halting the industry’s dynamic growth (Dena 2015b).
The French government, on the other hand, has recently announced plans to
facilitate construction of 1500 biogas plants over the next 3 years (Ministère de
l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l’Énergie 2014). More specifically, the
government is aiming to have 8 TWh from biomethane injected into the grid by
2023 (Ministère de l’environnement, de l’énergie et de la mer 2016). These
ambitious goals, supported by favorable FITs, have sparked dynamic growth in
the sector: as of June 2016, 21 biomethane plants were injecting gas into the grid
(personal calculation based on grid operators’ Websites).
In the UK, 50 upgrading plants were in operation as of late 2015 (Zennaro 2015).
Further growth in Europe is expected. In fact, biomethane production by 2030 is
projected to reach 18–20 billion ncbm/year, meaning nearly 40 % of the biogas
produced in Europe will have been upgraded by that time (Green Gas Grids 2013).
Other countries have also identified great potential for their emerging biogas
markets. In the USA, for example, it is estimated that biogas upgraded to
biomethane could replace up to 56 % of the natural gas consumed in the transporta-
tion sector (Milbrandt 2013). Japan started to inject upgraded biogas into the grid as
early as 2010 (Osaka Gas 2010); the industry there shows significant potential for
growth, especially in biogas derived from waste.
Biomethane markets around the world are driven to a varying extent by state
interventions. These range from FITs for biomethane, probably the strongest form
of state support, to free markets where explicit support mechanisms do not exist but
motivating factors that promote development of the biomethane market do. Figure 3
shows the range of policies various nations have adopted, some of which can work
concurrently in the same country. In Germany, for example, there is a FIT (although
154 C. Herbes
Fig. 3 Forms of state intervention in biomethane market [author illustration, partly based on
Strauch (2014), Larsson et al. (2016), Mathiasson (2016), Schmid (2015), Department of Energy
and Climate Change (2013)]
financially no longer attractive) for CHP units using biomethane. At the same time,
oil companies selling vehicle fuel must reach a certain quota of renewables in their
portfolio, a requirement that drives demand for, among other sources, biomethane
and biomethane-based certificates. Similar market-driven support exists in the
German construction industry, where new buildings must fulfill certain energy-
related standards; one way to meet these standards is to use a biomethane-fueled
heating system. Finally, a private market for gas products containing a percentage
of biomethane has emerged as households increasingly look to make purchasing
decisions that help protect the environment.
Of course, the different support schemes offer investors and operators varying
financial incentives to develop biomethane injection plants or to convert existing
plants into upgrading plants. FITs provide a high level of security for investors;
moreover, they are relatively easy to handle and remove from biogas upgrading
plants the need to market their product directly to customers since commercial
transactions are handled indirectly through a registry system. Free markets, on the
other hand, present investors with greater risks, meaning there is an expectation for
greater reward. Risk arises from the fact that after a plant has been built, few options
exist for responding to negative developments on the demand side. Plant
adaptations and cost reductions offer only marginal flexibility, inasmuch as feed-
stock, especially agricultural feedstock, can only be obtained from the local area
around the plant, and changes to the gas-generating and upgrading technology are
also difficult to realize.
Not only do the different support schemes influence the return and risk of the
investor, but when a scheme favors specific application areas, it also determines
where and how the biomethane is used. So, for example, favorable FITs exist in
Germany for converting biomethane into electricity, a fact that has led to a large
proportion of domestically produced biomethane ending up in CHP units. Sweden,
on the other hand, offers tax incentives for cars fueled by biomethane, and so the
largest share of biomethane serves the automotive sector.
While national markets continue to develop in scope to meet divergent needs,
transnational trade of biomethane still faces challenges. Germany has been an
exporter of biomethane in recent years, while Switzerland and Sweden have been
major importers (Dena 2014b; Schmid 2015; Larsson et al. 2016). Exporters into
Germany, however, face in effect a trade tariff since the terms of Germany’s REA
prohibit CHP units that use foreign biomethane from claiming a FIT. This is just
one example demonstrating barriers to international trade of biomethane. To lift
these barriers, a European renewable gas registry would be required that documents
the flows and attributes of biomethane throughout the value chain from producer to
consumer. This would require that criteria and standards for biomethane be made
consistent across all European markets (Kovacs 2016).
2 Players in the Value Chain
Players in the value chain include both biogas plants that upgrade gas to produce
biomethane and those that use biogas on site to produce electricity (Kaltschmitt and
Streicher 2009). The latter are generally smaller plants operated by local farmers.
The former are larger plants developed and operated by nonagricultural players,
such as the biomethane producer NAWARO BioEnergie AG. Their plant in
Guestrow, Northern Germany, for example, represents the upper end of the size
scale, with a capacity of 5000 ncbm/h.
The average German biogas plant producing electricity on site has a size of
ca. 0.5 MWel (German Biogas Association 2015), while the capacity of the average
biogas upgrading facility is about five times that size (personal calculations based
on German Biogas Association 2015; Dena 2015b).
Plant size has evolved in response to the regulatory thresholds governing the
German FIT for electricity produced with biomethane. As a result, many plants in
Germany run at capacities between the 350 and 700 ncbm/h thresholds.
These plants operate in a biomethane value chain that has witnessed dynamic
development driven by strategic integration moves, both forward and backward.
The main steps in this value chain are shown in Fig. 4.
Agricultural businesses, traditionally strong in biomass production, have started
activities in biomethane production. Technology providers and Engineering-
Procurement-Construction companies like Envitec and the former MT Energie
have also been moving forward in the value chain. Envitec even offers contracting
156 C. Herbes
Production
Biomass
EPC of other raw
production
materials
Biomethane
production
Gas
Biomethane
Biomethane Broker Biomethane
wholesale
retail trade activity transport
trade
Biomethane
Biomethane Biomethane
Biomethane consumption in
consumption consumption
consumption industrial
in residential in vehicles
in CHP units companies
homes (heat) (fuel)
(heat)
Heat
consumption
CHP
Fig. 4 Biomethane value chain [author illustration based on Herbes and Hess (2011)]
services in the heat market based on the biomethane it produces in its own plants,
thus reaching directly into the end-user market. The classic players in biomethane
production are AC Biogas and NAWARO BioEnergie AG, both of which started
their businesses in that part of the value chain. AC Biogas, however, has expanded
its traditional activities by both backward—producing biomass—and forward inte-
gration—providing heat from biomethane.
The wholesale step of the value chain is represented by big utility companies
such as E.ON or RWE, which have, however, begun backward integration into
biomethane production. Besides these big utilities, new companies such as bmp
greengas have established a strong position in the wholesale market. Retail, the next
step, is dominated by municipal utilities, the so-called Stadtwerke. Some of these
have also expanded their activities into biomethane production. Between the
wholesalers and the retailers are the brokers, like Arcanum Energy.
A look at the overall value chain makes it clear that a wide range of players shape
the biogas industry, from business activities focused far upstream to those operating
all the way downstream. The classic biomethane producers have countered these
moves by competitors by starting their own forward and backward integration
activities.
3 Utilization Paths and Their Influencing Factors
That biomethane can be used in many ways represents a defining characteristic of

this market, one that sets it apart from the market for renewable electricity. There
are, broadly speaking, four paths or markets that exist for biomethane: using it to
produce electricity in CHP units, using it as a substitute for natural gas in NGVs,
using it for heating buildings, and using it as a raw material in the chemical industry
(Fig. 5).
The presence of four distinct utilization paths creates path dependency in both
the biomethane-based end product and in the marketing strategies used by suppliers
of that product. Along some paths, the marketing of biomethane is strongly
influenced by the prevailing legal framework; for example, the production substrate
or the plant size used to generate the biogas may have to conform to categories
stipulated by regulations. In Germany, laws such as the REA, the Biomass Ordi-
nance, the Renewable Energy Heat Act, the Biofuel Sustainability Regulation, and
others must be considered in any marketing strategy. There are, however, other
markets where legislative stipulations play a lesser role and biogas product
attributes are best aligned with consumer preferences. But each utilization path
poses its own unique challenges, which means that planning for a biomethane plant
requires that the target utilization path be considered first. Of course, shifting to
other utilization paths once a plant is in operation is possible; however, this may
result in less than optimal revenues.
The relative importance of the four utilization paths differs by country. In
Germany, the world’s largest biomethane market, the gas is used predominantly
for firing CHP units, a market whose economic viability depends on the FIT
158 C. Herbes
Electricity generation in
a CHP unit
Fuel
Biomethane
Heating (no CHP)
Material use
Fig. 5 Biomethane utilization paths
80%
70%
60%
50%
40% 2016
30% planned
20%
10% 2015
0% planned
Fig. 6 Relative importance of four utilization paths in German market, 2015 and 2016 (planned)
[author illustration, data based on Dena (2015b, 2014b)]
stipulated by the REA (Fig. 6). The German REA thus has been the main driver
behind the German biomethane market. The market for vehicle fuels is the second
most important path, but with an expected share of 13 % of the market in 2016, it is
much smaller than the market for CHP units. In Sweden, biomethane is used
primarily as a vehicle fuel, above all for captive fleets such as buses. Around
54 % of the biogas produced in Sweden is upgraded, and most of it is used as
vehicle fuel (Larsson et al. 2016). In Switzerland, on the other hand, while
biomethane is used as vehicle fuel, it is used primarily for heating. In fact, Swiss
gas distributors import foreign biomethane to satisfy the country’s demand (Schmid
2015).
In the following sections, we look at the different paths and their influencing
factors in more detail.
3.1 Market for Electricity Generation in CHP Units
Using biomethane in CHP plants seems unique to the German market because it is
driven by the state-led support system. The most important element of this support
system is the FIT for electricity generated from biogas and biomethane (Sorda et al.
2013). The way this system works is that, first, cogeneration units draw biomethane
from upgrading plants via the public gas grid; they then feed the electricity they
produce into the electricity grid, receiving a fixed FIT from the electricity grid
operators. The FIT is determined both by characteristics of the cogeneration unit
and by characteristics of the biomethane used. The German REA includes detailed
criteria for determining the FIT, including specifications for the substrate (energy
crops vs. waste) as well as for the size of the upgrading unit. Driven by the
incentives set by the REA, the majority of the feedstock in German biomethane
plants is maize silage (Dena 2014b), and many of the upgrading units have a size
just below the thresholds set in the REA (350 and 700 ncbm/h in REA 2009, and
700, 1000, and 1400 ncbm/h in REA 2012).
While CHP units have dominated the biomethane market in Germany, they are
bound to lose their leading position in the future. With the radical reform of the
biogas-related regulation in REA 2014, the FIT for electricity from biomethane has
been cut significantly, so that biomethane is in most cases no longer a viable fuel for
new CHP units (Herbes et al. 2014a). Businesses that supply heat and use cogene-
ration as the technical means to do so will probably turn to other options, such as
using natural gas or woody biomass.
3.2 Heating Market
Biomethane can be used as a substitute for natural gas in heating households and
businesses. This is a potentially large market: 48 % of the residential buildings in
Germany use gas for heating (BdEW 2014), and in France 50 % of multifamily
dwellings and 30 % of the single-family dwellings do so (gas in focus—
Observatoire du Gaz 2014). In the UK, 80 % of all residential homes are connected
to the gas grid (Department of Energy and Climate Change 2013). Overall, gas
accounted for 40 % of the heat produced in the European Union in 2013 (Eurostat
2016). Since heat production in residential homes and other buildings relies heavily
on natural gas, the heating market represents a significant opportunity for
biomethane.
Many biomethane-based gas products are available in Germany. Herbes et al.
counted 170 different products in 2014 with a biomethane content between 1 and
160 C. Herbes
100 % (Herbes et al. 2016). While this path only accounts for a small part of the
German biomethane market and less than 1 % of the German market for natural gas
(Eberlein 2015), its relative importance for biomethane marketers is expected to
rise owing to the difficulties that CHP plants face, as explained in Sect. 3.1.
In Germany, the heating market is partly driven by state-led support schemes.
There are regulations (EEWärmeG, MAP, EWärmeG Baden-Württemberg)
stipulating the use of renewables in newly constructed buildings. But these
regulations allow the developer or owner to decide which form of renewable energy
is used. So far, biomethane has not been competitive with solar thermal power,
insulation, and other renewable options. This is partly due to the fact that even in
new buildings constructed by private households, biomethane must be used in a
cogeneration unit to satisfy legal regulations, and the limited demand for heat in a
typical residential home makes this option financially unattractive (Loßner et al.
2012). Moreover, the federal Renewable Heat Act applies only to newly
constructed buildings, which account for only 0.6 % of existing buildings (EWI/
GWS/Prognos).
But private households also purchase biomethane-based gas products without
being incentivized or obligated by legal regulations. These households make
choices similar to those made in the market for green electricity: they choose to
make purchasing decisions that both protect the environment and support the
development of renewable energy. In the Netherlands, households can opt for a
green gas product over a pure natural gas product (Eker and van Daalen 2015), and
marketers are able to command a price premium to support this choice.
In Switzerland, where heat generation is the predominant utilization path for
biomethane, gas distributors have played an important role in shaping the market by
offering default green product options. So if a customer of, for example,
Energie360 in Zurich does not specify otherwise, the gas product received contains
5 % biomethane (Schmid 2015).
In Sweden, the government supports the use of biogas for heating by granting a
full exemption from energy and carbon dioxide taxes (Larsson et al. 2016). In the
UK, the Renewable Heat Incentive provides a FIT for biomethane that has been the
main driver of biomethane plant development (Adams et al. 2015). In Switzerland,
biomethane is exempted from the CO2 levy on natural gas; however, the exemption
applies only to domestically produced gas (Die Bundesversammlung—Das
Schweizer Parlament 2012).
However, two important barriers—absent from the green electricity market—
hamper the development of the biomethane market. First, there are widespread
reservations about using biogas (Herbes et al. 2014b; Markard et al. 2016), at least
as reflected in the attitudes of German consumers. These reservations center around
the large-scale use of energy crops in the biogas industry, a practice that in
Germany has drawn public criticism under the tabloid headline “maizification” of
the landscape (Herbes et al. 2014a). Whether these reservations would be shared
worldwide remains an open question.
However, the second barrier is likely to exist anywhere:consumers have been
lulled into thinking that green energy carries little in the way of additional cost.
Price premiums for green electricity products targeting private households have
remained low, averaging in 2012 only about 2 % (Mattes 2012). So customers have
grown used to purchasing green energy for a price only marginally higher than that
of electricity from fossil fuels. They have not had to choose between their pocket-
book and their conscience. But biomethane production comes at a cost about double
that of natural gas, meaning biomethane retailers face the challenging task of
convincing customers to pay a sizeable price premium hitherto unknown to them
(Herbes et al. 2016).
3.3 Market for Vehicle Fuels
The market for vehicle fuel is potentially interesting for biomethane producers in
the short and mid-term. Unlike in the market for electricity generation, renewables
such as wind or solar power are not likely to present strong competition to
biomethane since electric vehicle technology has progressed far more slowly than
the technology for NGVs.
Clearly, the market for biomethane as a vehicle fuel depends on the development
of the market for NGVs. As of late 2012, the number of NGVs worldwide stood at
nearly 17 million, with Iran, Pakistan, and Argentina representing a combined share
of 48 % of the world’s NGV fleet. In Europe, Italy stands out with a fleet of roughly
750,000 vehicles, which corresponds to 5 % of the world’s fleet. Over the last
10 years, the Asia-Pacific region has recorded a most impressive average annual
growth rate of 35 %, but even in Europe the average annual growth rate in the
number of NGVs reached 14 % between 2003 and 2012. Only in North America has
the growth in NGVs been stagnant over this period (NGV Global 2014).
In Germany, the biggest producer of biomethane, however, the number of NGVs
has not grown significantly; with a meager share of 0.2 % of the world’s fleet, the
market in Germany is generally considered a bust (Rosenstiel et al. 2015). Still, of
the 900 compressed natural gas (CNG) filling stations operating in Germany,
350 offer products that contain biomethane, and in many cases, customers can opt
for a 100 % biomethane product (Erdgas mobil 2013). As it stands today,
biomethane accounts for 20 % of the German CNG market.
The key factors influencing future growth include the delivery infrastructure
(number of gas stations), tax benefits and exemptions, vehicle manufacturers’
product policies, vehicle conversion costs, changes in consumer perceptions, and
coordination among the different players in the market (Rosenstiel et al. 2015).
Apart from these general developments and influencing factors in the market for
NGVs, there are unique trends in the different markets for biomethane as a
vehicle fuel.
In Germany, two distinct markets exist for biomethane as a vehicle fuel (Geisler
2014). First, consumers can make a conscious decision to buy biomethane instead
of natural gas to fuel their vehicles. Biomethane in this case replaces natural gas. In
the second market (quota market), companies that sell vehicle fuels can choose to
use biomethane to fulfill their quota obligations.
162 C. Herbes
In the first market, the main influencing factors are the number of NGVs, the
infrastructure, and consumer preferences. Consumers must choose a biomethane
product, and that means in many cases having to drive to a different filling station,
since only a third offer biomethane products. The price for biomethane at the filling
station is about the same as the price for CNG, so there is no significant negative
price influence. However, as in the heating market, negative perceptions of biogas
can prevent consumers from choosing a fuel based on biogas.
In the second market, the regulatory framework plays a dominating role. In
Germany, the controlling regulations are the German Federal Emission Control Act
and the Biofuel Sustainability Regulation. The Emission Control Act obliges
companies that sell gasoline or diesel to fulfill an annual biofuel quota, which
today stands at 6.25 %. The quota can be fulfilled by blending biomethane with
CNG, although alternative renewable fuels like bioethanol and biodiesel compete
with biomethane in this application. Moreover, biomethane used to fulfill a quota
obligation must meet the requirements of the Biofuel Sustainability Regulation. In
particular, companies must demonstrate that by using biomethane they reduce the
greenhouse gas emissions of their fuels by a certain percentage (Geisler 2014). In
Germany, this figure has stood at 3 % since 2015 and will increase to 7 % in 2020.
Market experts estimate that the first quota of 3 % has already been fulfilled with the
reduction potentials of currently used biofuels (Geisler 2014). However, the quota
of 7 % will be difficult to achieve and could drive the demand for biomethane,
especially biomethane generated from waste (Erdgas mobil 2013; Grope and
Holzhammer 2012; Geisler 2014), since this has the greatest reduction potential.
That biomethane in the quota market is judged by both fuel companies and
customers on its specific greenhouse gas reduction potential changes the nature of
competition in this market. Competition is no longer based on the price per amount
of energy but on price per amount of greenhouse gas emissions saved. The
greenhouse gas reduction potential of other biofuels such as biodiesel affects the
competitive landscape, as does the fact that the reduction potential for biomethane
differs depending on the feedstock used. This places more stringent requirements
on biomethane plants to document the greenhouse gas saving potential of their
products.
One negative factor in this market is regulation on the European level that limits
the share of food-crop biofuels that qualify as renewables in the transportation
sector. The current regulatory limit is 7 % of energy consumption by 2020 (Scarlat
et al. 2015).
Blending CNG with biomethane is just one of several options for fuel
companies. Alternatively, they can use bioethanol or biodiesel mixed with ethanol
and diesel. Thus, the decision to choose biomethane depends on the market
development and prices for these alternative biofuels. Overcapacities in biofuel
refineries and low prices for used cooking oil have had a negative influence on
biomethane prices in the fuel market (Erdgas mobil 2013).
In Sweden, 54 % of the biogas produced in the country is upgraded, and most of
it is used as a vehicle fuel. Fully 0.9 TWh of biomethane is sold as vehicle fuel, and
Sweden even imports biomethane from other countries to meet its fuel demand.
Biomethane accounted for 1.2 % of all fuel in Sweden and 11 % of biofuel in 2013
(Larsson et al. 2016). The Swedish government applies a wide set of policy
instruments to support the use of biomethane as a vehicle fuel. It grants a full
exemption from energy and carbon dioxide tax as well as vehicle tax for 5 years,
provides investment support to various parts of the biogas value chain, requires
filling stations to sell renewable fuel, and employs a number of additional
instruments (Larsson et al. 2016).
3.4 Material Use
The chemical industry is a new and still nascent market for biomethane. In
principle, there are two ways of using biomethane in this industry. First is a
“real” material use, where biomethane replaces natural gas in industrial processes
such as the production of plastics. Second, companies in the chemical industry can
buy certificates of origin from biomethane producers while continuing to produce
plastics based on oil. In both cases, companies can build on the positive environ-
mental characteristics of biomethane and offer their customers “green” plastics, for
example, as a packaging material. Given the fact that plastic packaging for fast
moving consumer goods such as shampoo or yogurt accounts for only a small
fraction of the total cost of the product, yet at the same time oil-based plastics
present a well-known threat to the environment, “green packaging” based on
biomethane can be an attractive strategy for marketing consumer goods.
German-based BASF, a big multinational player in the chemical industry, has,
together with TÜV Süd, already developed and introduced a certification system
based on mass balancing to replace natural gas with biomethane in its production
processes. This allows BASF to offer its customers raw materials such as polyamide
for which biomethane or bionaphta is used instead of fossil-based materials (BASF
2014; Klein and Frietsch 2015).
4 Suppliers’ Marketing Mix
The four utilization paths have different requirements for biomethane products,
different decision criteria, and user economics. Therefore, we differentiate the
discussion of the elements of the marketing mix in the following sections
accordingly.
4.1 Product Policy
When buying biomethane, customers value product attributes differently depending

on the utilization path. German customers operating CHP plants buy a biomethane
product based on the attributes stipulated in the German REA that are relevant for
the FIT they receive. The FIT is calculated based on the size of the biomethane
164 C. Herbes
Input material Compliance with the Biomass according to

(energy plants, waste maize cap various laws /
etc.) (60 %) ordinances
Capacity of gas
Record of input Digetate container
upgrading unit
material covered (yes/no)
(e.g.. 350 ncbm/h)
Digester directly linked Compliance with

Intermediate storage
to digestate post-rotting maximum electricity
before public grid
unit consumption
Methane
Mass balancing system Etc.
emissions
Fig. 7 Attributes of biomethane products [author illustration, based on Dena (2014a)]
upgrading unit, the year it went into operation, and the kind of input material the
plant uses. Since each of these attributes has numerous possible values, many
combinations exist, which has led to the introduction of many different biomethane
products on the market (Plaas 2014). Figure 7 presents the different attributes of
biomethane products that can be combined to produce differentiated products.
Currently, the biogas register operated by the German Energy Agency lists more
than 100 different biomethane products, each with slightly different product
attributes. For customers, these variations are confusing and make it difficult to
formulate a business plan for their biomethane-based CHP unit.
Whereas FITs drive the CHP market, it is greenhouse gas emission reduction
potentials that drive the market for vehicle fuels. Since the reduction potential
depends on the production process and the input material, this market also features a
wide variety of products. The greater the reduction potential of a product, the more
value that product has for the oil and gas companies purchasing it. The end
customer at the filling station, however, is usually unable to detect any differences
between products based on reduction potentials, although an advertiser could
change that perception.
In the heating market, the product portfolio for private households is not nearly
as complex as in the CHP and vehicle fuel markets. Most households do not operate
a CHP unit and so are not eligible to receive a FIT. They simply use the biomethane
in existing heating systems that run on natural gas. But other attributes can be
important for private customers. First, the biomethane content in a product is
crucial. Very few products consist of 100 % biomethane; many contain 10 or
30 % biomethane. Biomethane marketers can further differentiate their products
based on the input material. Based on the attitudes of German consumers, the use of
energy plants, especially maize, for producing biogas is viewed critically, while
biogas produced from waste is viewed more favorably (Forsa 2013; Herbes and
Ramme 2014). Just as in the market for green electricity, marketers could further
benefit from marketing their gas as being “produced locally” or bearing an ecolabel.
However, these are only rarely used, at least in Germany (Herbes et al. 2016).
In Switzerland, public utilities have started to integrate a nudging strategy into
their product policy. Gas consumers who do not actively opt for a different solution
often receive a natural gas product that contains a certain percentage of biomethane,
for example, 3 or 10 %. Customers who want a larger share of biomethane can
choose from a range of products with up to 100 % biomethane; they can also choose
between products with or without ecolabels (Schmid 2015).
4.2 Pricing Policy
The pricing policies of suppliers, like product policies, differ greatly across the four
different utilization paths. In the CHP market, the largest market in Germany, the
user economics are transparent to suppliers. Based on the size and initial date of the
CHP operation, the FIT according to the REA is easy to calculate. Investment costs
for standard CHPs are also transparent, as is the cost of natural gas as an alternative
fuel. If the price for the heat is known as well, the supplier can more or less work out
a customer’s business plan and set a price for the biomethane accordingly (Herbes
and Hess 2011).
Besides the price level, a pricing strategy contains two additional components:
the price adjustment mechanism during the contract period and the length of the
contract period. While biomethane contracts in the first years of the developing
CHP market were often tied to the price of heating oil and then to the price of
natural gas, today many contracts have a fixed annual price increase of perhaps 2 %.
The length of the contract period varies widely in this market, from a few months to
10 years.
In the fuel market, biomethane producers and traders are rather passive price
takers. The price for the biofuel quota is strongly influenced by conditions in the
bioethanol and biodiesel markets, both of which are far bigger than the biomethane
market. But unlike in the CHP market, in the fuel market there are no long-term
contracts.
In the end-user market at the filling station, pricing is a barrier for marketers.
While prices for gasoline and diesel are listed in euros per liter, prices for CNG and
166 C. Herbes
biomethane are listed in euros per kilogram. Since the energy value per unit varies
widely, it is difficult for end customers to compare prices. This has led the
biomethane industry to suggest listing prices in euros per the equivalent of one
liter of gasoline, a change that would require modifying the law governing the
listing of prices (Dena 2013).
For the heating market, a recent study examined the pricing strategy of suppliers
for biomethane-based gas products targeted at residential customers (Herbes et al.
2016). The study shows that the price depends mainly on the biomethane content of
the product. Research on the willingness to pay of customers from the green
electricity market (Herbes et al. 2015) and on the biomethane market (Forsa
2013) suggests that certain attributes like ecolabels, extra climate protection
activities, and using waste instead of energy plants could offer room to demand
higher prices. However, none of these attributes currently has a significant impact
on the price of biomethane products. Moreover, absolute prices as well as price
premiums for biomethane products as compared to pure natural gas products differ
widely among providers.
Besides the conditions in the different utilization paths or markets, production
costs also influence pricing strategies. The costs differ considerably depending on
the size of the biogas plant and the upgrading plant as well as on the cost of the input
material. For an energy-based plant with a capacity of 500 ncbm/h (raw gas), the
costs may fall between 7.8 and 8.4 eurocent/kWh; for a larger plant with a capacity
of 2,000 ncbm/h, costs fall between 6.4 and 7.0 eurocent/kWh (Grope and
Holzhammer 2012).
4.3 Distribution Policy
As part of their marketing strategy, biomethane producers must make a decision on

their distribution channels. Apart from the more fundamental decision on the
utilization path, they must also decide whether they want to use intermediaries,
such as wholesalers or retailers, or market directly to their end customers. This kind
of disintermediation is already visible in the market: on its Website, for example,
the biomethane producer NAWARO BioEnergiepark Güstrow GmbH addresses
CHP operators. Apart from wholesalers and retailers, trading platforms like www.
biomethan-markt.de also match suppliers and customers. For the physical distribu-
tion of gas, suppliers use the public gas grid.
Another important task for suppliers in distribution is the documentation of the
attributes of biomethane for their customers. The CHP market will serve to illus-
trate. Remember that sellers of electricity on the CHP market must meet regulatory
criteria to be eligible to receive a FIT. They must prove that the biomethane used in
their CHP units satisfies these criteria. Thus, biomethane producers must provide
documentation that CHP operators can use to meet this burden of proof.
The basic approach to such documentation is “mass balancing,” that is, the
biomethane is not physically transported from the producer to the customer.
Instead, the producer injects a certain amount of biomethane into the public grid,
and this quantity with its attributes is booked in a registry. In Germany, 80 % of all
biomethane upgrading plants use the biogas registry of the German Energy Agency
(dena). The customer takes the same amount of gas out of the public grid, marks the
corresponding quantity in the registry as used, and receives documentation that can
be used to claim a FIT for the electricity produced or to prove to private households
that the gas sold to them is really biomethane. The attributes the producer
documents in the biogas registry, for example, the size of the upgrading unit or
input material, are verified by external auditors, who issue audit reports. Suppliers
use the audit reports for their documentation in the biogas registry (Dena 2015a).
4.4 Communication Policy
Communication policy, like the other elements of the marketing mix, depends on
the utilization path. In the following paragraphs we first look at the arguments
suppliers use to win customers and then at the communication channels.
In the CHP market in Germany, the main argument used to be the long-term cost
advantage in heat generation over the use of natural gas. This cost advantage was
derived from the additional income from the FIT for the electricity produced in the
CHP unit. The communication was business to business, mostly through the sales
personnel of traders like municipal utilities, but also partly through the Websites of
biomethane producers.
However, the heating market is largely business to consumer, making the
Websites of marketers vitally important. Generally, it is difficult for biomethane
marketers to attract consumer attention. Consider, for example, that 10 % of the
users of the German price comparison portal Toptarif in 2013/2014 were specifi-
cally looking for green electricity products when shopping for electricity; however,
only 1.6 % of gas customers were looking for green gas (Toptarif 2014).
A second barrier for providers of biomethane-based products is the fact that
customers looking for an environmentally friendly gas product can choose between
products based on biomethane and so-called climate gas products. For the latter, the
provider uses natural gas and compensates the CO2 emissions of the product by
supporting environmental protection projects abroad or other activities. It is proba-
bly safe to assume that not all customers understand the difference between the two
product categories, and so not all of those among the aforementioned 1.6 % that
switch products will be buying a biomethane-based product. These so-called
climate gas products, based on CO2 emission compensation, are available not
only on the German market but also in France, Switzerland, and other countries.
Further complicating the marketing of biomethane-based products are the criti-
cal views consumers make have toward biogas. Various studies from Germany
have shown that biogas is the least popular among the renewable energy
technologies (Herbes et al. 2014b) and that there are strong reservations concerning
the use of energy plants, especially maize, for producing biogas (Herbes and
Ramme 2014; Forsa 2013; Markard et al. 2016).
168 C. Herbes
Providers of biomethane-based products for residential customers communicate

the following advantages: positive environmental effects, climate protection, a
support of energy transition process, and the building of new renewable energy
facilities that reduce dependence on imports. The arguments for buying biomethane
are thus similar to those used by suppliers of green electricity (Herbes and Ramme
2014). However, only a minority of the providers in a recent study of biomethane-
based products in Germany actively communicate the input material (energy plants
vs. waste), and one third did not even disclose the input material upon request
(Herbes et al. 2016). One reason for this rather restrained communication could be
the suppliers’ awareness of the controversial public discourse around energy plants.
5 Conclusion
The markets for biomethane are multifaceted and dynamic, varying widely based
on four distinct utilization paths and the prevailing regulatory climates. Many
markets are still influenced by state-led support schemes in various forms, such
as FITs, quota regulations, investment support, tax incentives, and other energy-
policy instruments. Germany, boasting the most developed biomethane market in
the world, built its dominant position largely on the basis of FIT incentives for
electricity produced using biomethane. Now that the FIT has been lowered consid-
erably, other markets such as those for vehicle fuel, heating, and use in industry are
expected to gain in importance. Yet another market—one not influenced by regu-
latory policy—is the private household, where consumers seeking to protect the
environment can choose biomethane as a substitute for natural gas. By developing a
suitable marketing mix, providers could use these pro-environmental attitudes and
preferences of customers to grow the biomethane market and make themselves less
dependent on state-led support schemes.
References
Adams, P., Mezzullo, W. G., & McManus, M. C. (2015). Biomass sustainability criteria: Green-
house gas accounting issues for biogas and biomethane facilities. Energy Policy, 87, 95–109.
BASF. (2014). BASF: Erstes Polyamid aus dem Massenbilanz-Verfahren im Serieneinsatz.
plasticker news. Accessed June 22, 2016, from http://plasticker.de/news/shownews.php?
nr¼23396.
BdEW. (2014). BDEW Studie Wie heizt Deutschland. Accessed June 22, 2016, from https://www.
bdew.de/internet.nsf/id/C44E72D1F65D174EC1257DAC00319783/$file/141212%20BDEW
%20Studie%20Wie%20heizt%20Deutschland%20Anhang.pdf.
Dena. (2013). Transparente Preisinformation f€ ur einen Kraftstoffmarkt im Wandel:
L€osungsans€atze f€
ur eine bessere Vergleichbarkeit der Preise alternativer Kraftstoffe. Berlin.
Accessed June 22, 2016, from http://www.dena.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Publikationen/
Verkehr/Dokumente/20131007_Positionspapier_web.pdf.
Dena. (2014a). Biogas register Germany—Catalogue of criteria. Dena. Accessed June 22, 2016,
from http://www.biogasregister.de/fileadmin/biogasregister/media/englische_Dokumente/Cat
alogue_of_Criteria_Biogasregister.pdf.
Dena. (2014b). Branchenbarometer Biomethan. Daten, Fakten und Trends zur Biogaseinspeisung.
1/2014. Accessed June 22, 2016, from http://www.biogaspartner.de/fileadmin/biogas/
documents/Branchenbarometer/Branchenbarometer_Biomethan_I_2014.pdf.
Dena. (2015a). Biogasregister.de: English Information. Accessed June 22, 2016, from http://www.
biogasregister.de/index.php?id¼713.
Dena. (2015b). Branchenbarometer Biomethan: Daten, Fakten und Trends zu Biomethan 2015.
Berlin. Accessed July 23, 2015.
Dena. (2015c). Branchenbarometer Biomethan: Daten, Fakten und Trends zu Biomethan 2015.
Accessed May 13, 2016.
Department of Energy and Climate Change. (2013). The future of heating: Meeting the challenge.
Accessed June 22, 2016, from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attach
ment_data/file/190149/16_04-DECC-The_Future_of_Heating_Accessible-10.pdf.
Die Bundesversammlung—Das Schweizer Parlament. (2012). Keine CO2-Abgabe auf
importiertem Biogas. Accessed June 22, 2016, from https://www.parlament.ch/de/ratsbetrieb/
suche-curia-vista/geschaeft?AffairId¼20123191.
Eberlein, J. (2015). Biofuels and eco gas—Market overview Germany. Dena. Accessed June
13, 2016, from http://www.dena.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Veranstaltungen/2015/European_
Biomethane_Conference/Jens_Eberlein.pdf.
Eker, S., & van Daalen, E. (2015). A model-based analysis of biomethane production in the
Netherlands and the effectiveness of the subsidization policy under uncertainty. Energy Policy,
82, 178–196.
Erdgas mobil. (2013). Entwicklungen im Kraftstoff- und Biokraftstoffmarkt 1. Halbjahr 2013—Eine
Analyse der Biokraftstoff-Quotenplattform von erdgas mobil. Accessed June 22, 2016, from
https://www.erdgas-mobil.de/fileadmin/downloads/Presse/Studien_Artikel_Broschueren/Halbja
hresinformation_2013_Biokraftstoffmarkt.pdf.
European Biogas Association. (2016a). 17240 biogas plants in Europe. http://european-biogas.eu/
wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Graph-1-Biogas-plants.png.
European Biogas Association. (2016b). 367 biomethane AD plants in Europe. http://european-
biogas.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Graph-2-Biomethane-plants1.png.
Eurostat. (2016). Electricity and heat statistics. Accessed June 22, 2016, from http://ec.europa.eu/
eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Electricity_and_heat_statistics#Derived_heat_production.
EWI/GWS/Prognos. Energieszenarien für ein Energiekonzept der Bundesregierung.
Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety. (2011). Das
Integrierte Energie- und Klimaschutzprogramm (IEKP). Accessed May 13, 2016, from http://
www.bmub.bund.de/detailansicht/artikel/das-integrierte-energie-und-klimaschutzprogramm-iekp/.
Forsa. (2013). Vorstellungen und Erwartungen der Verbraucher in Bezug auf Biogasangebote.
Berlin: Bericht.
Gas in focus—Observatoire du Gaz. (2014). Types of energy used for heating by type of housing.
Accessed June 22, 2016, from http://www.gasinfocus.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/E18.
xlsx.
Geisler, R. (2014, Juni). Biomethan auf Spur? Neue Entwicklungen im Kraftstoffmarkt.Vortrag bei
der dena biogaspartnerschaft am 24. Berlin. Accessed June 22, 2016, from http://www.dena.de/
fileadmin/user_upload/Veranstaltungen/2014/Biogaspartner_Podium/09_Robin_Geisler.pdf.
German Biogas Association. (2015). Biogas segment statistics 2014/2015. Accessed June
22, 2016, from http://www.biogas.org/edcom/webfvb.nsf/id/DE_Branchenzahlen/$file/15-11-
19_Biogasindustryfigures_2014-2015_english.pdf.
Green Gas Grids. (2013). Proposal for a European biomethane roadmap: WP 3. Accessed May
13, 2016, from http://european-biogas.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/GGG-Biomethane-
roadmap-final.pdf.
€
Grope, J., & Holzhammer, U. (2012). Okonomische Analyse der Nutzungsm€ oglichkeiten von
Biomethan: Biomethanverwertung in Kraft-W€ arme-Kopplung, als Kraftstoff und als
Beimischprodukt im W€ armemarkt: Vortrag beim VDI Wissensforum. Accessed June
170 C. Herbes
22, 2016, from https://www.dbfz.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Vortraege/Extern/2012-06-28_%

C3%96konomische_Analyse_der_Nutzungsm%C3%B6glichkeiten_von_Biomethan.pdf.
Hahn, H., Krautkremer, B., Hartmann, K., & Wachendorf, M. (2014). Review of concepts for a
demand-driven biogas supply for flexible power generation. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 29, 383–393.
Herbes, C. (2015). Marketing von Biomethan. In C. Herbes & C. Friege (Eds.), Marketing
Erneuerbarer Energien: Grundlagen, Gesch€ aftsmodelle, Fallbeispiele (pp. 183–201).
Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.
Herbes, C., Braun, L., & Rube, D. (2016). Pricing of biomethane products targeted at private
households in Germany—Product attributes and providers’ pricing strategies. Energies, 9(4),
252.
562–572.
Herbes, C., & Hess, F. (2011). Herausforderungen in Marketing und Vertrieb von Biomethan—ein
neuer Markt entsteht. In Tagungsband 5. Rostocker Bioenergieforum, 95–110.
Herbes, C., Jirka, E., Braun, J. P., & Pukall, K. (2014). Der gesellschaftliche Diskurs um den
„Maisdeckel“ vor und nach der Novelle des Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetzes (EEG) 2012.
GAIA, 23(2), 100–108.
Herbes, C., Pustišek, A., McKenna, R., & Balussou, D. (2014). Überraschende Diskrepanz bei
Biogas: lokal akzeptiert, global umstritten. Energiewirtschaftliche Tagesfragen, 2014(5),
53–56.
Kaltschmitt, M., & Streicher, W. (2009). Energie aus Biomasse. In S. Kaltschmitt, M. Kaltschmitt,
& W. Streicher (Eds.), Regenerative Energien in Osterreich€ (pp. 339–532). Wiesbaden:
Vieweg + Teubner.
Klein, D., & Frietsch, S. (2015). Identical product properties—Chemical products based on
renewable resources through use of the mass balance approach. FAPU—European Polyure-
thane Journal (January 2015), 3–4.
Kovacs, A. (2016). BIOSURF project serving the evolution of the European biomethane market.
Accessed June 22, 2016, from http://www.biosurf.eu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/
09_Kovacs-Malmo-12May2016.pptx.
Larsson, M., Gr€ onkvist, S., & Alvfors, P. (2016). Upgraded biogas for transport in Sweden—
Effects of policy instruments on production, infrastructure deployment and vehicle sales.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 3774–3784.
Loßner, M., Gawel, E., & Herbes, C. (2012). Einsatz von Biomethan in Neubauten nach
EEWärmeG—eine Hemmnis- und Wirtschaftlichkeitsanalyse. Zeitschrift f€
ur
Energiewirtschaft, 36(4), 267–283.
Markard, J., Wirth, S., & Truffer, B. (2016). Institutional dynamics and technology legitimacy—A
framework and a case study on biogas technology. Research Policy, 45(1), 330–344.
Mathiasson, A. (2016). Present status and future projects of biomethane in Sweden (Scandinavia).
Accessed June 22, 2016, from http://www.biosurf.eu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/
03_EBASwedenmay2016.pptx.
Mattes, A. (2012). Grüner Strom: Verbraucher sind bereit, für Investitionen in erneuerbare
Energien zu zahlen. DIW-Wochenbericht, 79(7), 2–9.
Milbrandt, A. (2013). Biogas potential in the United States (Fact Sheet), energy analysis, NREL
(National Renewable Energy Laboratory). Accessed June 22, 2016, from http://www.nrel.gov/
docs/fy14osti/60178.pdf.
Ministère de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l’Énergie (2014). La transition énergé
tique pour la croissance verte. Accessed June 22, 2016, from http://www.developpement-
durable.gouv.fr/-La-transition-energetique-pour-la-.html.
Ministère de l’environnement, de l’énergie et de la mer (2016). Arrêté du 24 avril 2016 relatif aux
objectifs du développement des énergies renouvelables.
NGV Global. (2014). Natural gas vehicles statistics. Accessed June 22, 2016, from http://www.
iangv.org/current-ngv-stats/.
Osaka Gas. (2010). Biogas introduced to gas utility’s pipeline. Accessed June 22, 2016, from
https://www.osakagas.co.jp/en/whatsnew/1209735_11885.html.
Plaas, B. (2014). Getrennte Bilanzierung—Auswirkungen auf den Biomethanmarkt: Vortrag im
Rahmen von „Zukunft Biomethan—der Auftakt“, Berlin, 24. Juni 2014. Accessed June
22, 2016, from http://www.dena.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Veranstaltungen/2014/
Biogaspartner_Podium/03_Bjoern_Plaas.pdf.
von Rosenstiel, D. P., Heuermann, D. F., & Hüsig, S. (2015). Why has the introduction of natural
gas vehicles failed in Germany?—Lessons on the role of market failure in markets for
alternative fuel vehicles. Energy Policy, 78, 91–101.
Scarlat, N., Dallemand, J.-F., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Banja, M., & Motola, V. (2015). Renewable
energy policy framework and bioenergy contribution in the European Union—An overview
from National Renewable Energy Action Plans and Progress Reports. Renewable and Sustain-
able Energy Reviews, 51, 969–985.
Schmid, M. (2015). Biomethane for heating purposes: Case study Switzerland. Dena. Accessed
June 22, 2016, from http://www.dena.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Veranstaltungen/2015/Euro
pean_Biomethane_Conference/Michael_Schmid.pdf.
Sorda, G., Sunak, Y., & Madlener, R. (2013). An agent-based spatial simulation to evaluate the
promotion of electricity from agricultural biogas plants in Germany. Ecological Economics,
89, 43–60.
Strauch, S. (2014). Biomethane markets and policies, presentation on the European workshop on
biomethane—Markets, value chains and applications. Accessed June 22, 2016, from http://
european-biogas.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/6_Sabine-Strauch_Biomethane-markets-2.pdf.
Thrän, D. (2014). Biomethane: Status and factors affecting market development and trade: A joint
study by IEA bioenergy Task 40 and Task 37. Accessed 13 May 2016 from http://www.
bioenergytrade.org/downloads/t40-t37-biomethane-2014.pdf.
€
Toptarif (2014). Verbraucher zeigen kaum Interesse an Okogas. Accessed June 22, 2016, from
http://www.toptarif.de/presse/presse-announcement/article/613.
Zennaro, K. (2015). Biomethane Roadmap in the UK. Accessed June 22, 2016, from http://www.
biosurf.eu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/UK-Roadmap_REA.pptx.
Carsten Herbes is a professor of International Manage-

ment and Renewable Energy at Nuertingen-Geislingen Uni-
versity (NGU) and Director of the ‚Institute for International
Research on Sustainable Management and Renewable
Energy‘. Before joining NGU he worked for ten years with
a leading management consulting firm in Europe and Asia.
Subsequently he joined a bioenergy company where he
finally became CFO. He obtained a Master’s degree in
business administration from Mannheim University and a
Ph.D. from the University of Frankfurt (Oder). His research
topics include marketing, acceptance and cost of renewable
energy. He acts as advisor on sustainability issues to various
companies and associations and is a frequent speaker at
national and international conferences.
Renewable Energies in the Contracting
Market
€pfer and Ulrich Kliemczak

Ralf Klo
Abstract
Contracting is an innovative service model in which tasks relating to the supply
of energy and other utilities are assigned to a contractor. This produces a number
of benefits for prospective customers. Many varieties of contracting have
become established on the market. These mainly differ in terms of the scope
of services offered by the service provider. Renewable energies (“renewables”)
are deployed in contracting concepts, particularly when it comes to supplying
heating energy. That said, the different forms of renewables are not equally
suited to this purpose and therefore offer varying potential for deployment.
Various subsidy programmes are available to further increase renewables’
share of energy consumption and, thus, successfully promote the so-called
energy turnaround. However, the use of renewables also involves numerous
challenges and risks. Contracting provides prospective users with the opportu-
nity to overcome these hurdles and use renewables in their energy supply. As a
general rule, it is the customer who decides whether renewables will be used in
the context of a contracting solution by stipulating the requirements it has in its
utility solution. Furthermore, lawmakers also play a key role by setting manda-
tory requirements for the use of renewables or by determining the relevant
subsidy framework. Usually, renewables can only be used when they come
R. Kl€
opfer (*)
MVV Energie AG, Mannheim, Germany
e-mail: ralf.kloepfer@mvv.de
U. Kliemczak
MVV EnergySolutions GmbH, Mannheim, Germany
e-mail: u.kliemczak@mvv.de

174 R. Kl€
opfer and U. Kliemczak
with inexpensive supply concepts or enable customers to comply with legal

requirements.
Keywords
Contracting • Renewable energies • MVV • Contractor • Contracting models
1 Basic Principles of Contracting
1.1 Definition and Benefits of Contracting
The term “contracting” refers to the conclusion of a contract in which tasks

involved in supplying energy or other utilities are assigned by the client (the
“contractee”) to a service provider (the “contractor”). Within the contractual
framework, the contractor assumes responsibility for a specified period for supply-
ing the contractee’s property or production site with the energy and utilities it
requires, such as heating energy, cooling energy, electricity, compressed air, water
or nitrogen. In other models, the contractee assigns to the contractor only those
operations management tasks that are involved in supplying energy and utilities. In
this case, the contractee may have the necessary plant technology provided addi-
tionally by the contractor or elsewhere.
For the contractee, the assignment of individual tasks to a specialist service
provider offers numerous benefits. These may include:
• Drawing on the service provider’s expertise when it comes to plant design and
planning, procurement, plant construction, operations management and
optimisation;
• Ensuring that costs remain plannable;
• Avoiding proprietary investments in energy and utility supply measures;
• Ensuring high plant availability rates;
• Working with the contractor as a partner for all-round optimisation and effi-
ciency enhancement;
• Reducing primary energy consumption;
• Outsourcing economic and technological risks as well as planning and invest-
ment risks;
• Reducing the carbon footprint;
• Assigning operations management personnel to contractor, where applicable.
In return, the contractee commits itself to work together with the contractor for
several years. Depending on the contracting model selected, contract terms of
between 5 and 15 years are customary. To avoid any disadvantages arising for
the contractee over the long contractual term, it is important to select a competent
contractor, one who views the contract as a relationship between partners and is
willing and able to react flexibly to any changes in the relevant legislation and
market conditions.
Renewable Energies in the Contracting Market 175
Table 1 Value chain elements covered by various contracting models
1.2 Contracting Models
Depending on the services to be provided by the contractor, a distinction is made

between various contracting models which are referred to on the market with their
own designations, some of which nevertheless differ from provider to provider. The
four main contracting models as described in the industry standard DIN 8930-5 are
briefly outlined in what follows. An overview of the value chain elements covered
by the various contracting models is presented in Table 1.
1.2.1 Energy Supply Contracting

In this contracting model, the contractor assumes all tasks involved in supplying
energy and utilities to the customer, including plant operations, optimisation,
maintenance and repairs, on the basis of a long-term contract. The contractor thus
bears all of the economic, legal and technical risks involved in supplying the
customer. As a general rule, plant operation also involves assigning ownership of
the respective plants to the contractor. If the contract provides for the modernisation
or construction of energy and utility supply plants, then the contractor plans, builds
and finances these at its own risk and at its own expense. As well as bearing
responsibility for the plant, the contractor also sees to the procurement of the
energy to be used and sells the required useful energy and utilities to the contractee.
These services are usually settled with a basic charge and consumption-related
prices. Accounting for a share of around 84 % (http://www.energiecontracting.de/6-
verband/wir-ueber-uns/vfw-in-zahlen.php) of the overall contracting market, this
contracting model is by far the most widespread contract form.
1.2.2 Savings Contracting (Energy Savings Contracting)

In savings contracting, which accounts for around 9 % (http://www.
energiecontracting.de/6-verband/wir-ueber-uns/vfw-in-zahlen.php) of the market,
the contractor identifies energy savings potential at the customer and contractually
176 R. Kl€
guarantees specific energy savings. The contractor plans, finances and implements
the optimisation measures impacting energy consumption at the energy and utility
supply plants or downstream distribution and utilisation plants. As a general rule,
the contractee retains ownership of the plants themselves, while the contractor sees
to plant operation and optimisation. The contractor finances its expenses by
participating in the energy cost savings achieved. When it comes to documenting
annual energy savings, it is important that the energy requirements reference basis
should be jointly determined at the beginning of the contractual relationship. This is
because annual energy requirements at production plants in particular, but also in
normal real estate, fluctuate from year to year, and very significantly so in some
cases.
1.2.3 Technical Plant Management (Operations Management

Contracting)
In technical plant management contracting, the contractor merely assumes respon-
sibility for operating and optimising the energy and utility supply plants. The
contractee retains ownership of and legal responsibility for the plants and also
finances them.
Furthermore, the contractor may also provide advisory and planning services for
optimisation or modernisation measures. This contracting model has a market share
of around 4 % (http://www.energiecontracting.de/6-verband/wir-ueber-uns/vfw-in-
zahlen.php).
1.2.4 Financing Contracting

Projects in which the contractor plans, finances and builds the energy and utility
supply plants are referred to as financing contracting. The contractee retains
responsibility for operations and related risks. With a market share of 3 % (http://
www.energiecontracting.de/6-verband/wir-ueber-uns/vfw-in-zahlen.php), this
model plays a subordinate role since it does not allow for key contracting benefits
resulting from the assumption of responsibility for the plants and supplies to take
effect.
One special form of financing contracting that should be mentioned at this point
is the so-called lease model. This special contracting model has proven its worth in
recent years as a means of offering customers economically interesting solutions for
efficient, decentralised proprietary electricity generation. Here, the contractor
plans, finances and builds the proprietary electricity generation plant and leases
this to the contractee. As the owner and operator of the plant, the contractee benefits
from the so-called proprietary electricity privilege and is thus exempted from the
levy charged under the German Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) for the
electricity it generates itself. If so desired by the customer, the contractor can also
take over all of the operations management for the proprietary electricity generation
plant and thus offer the customer the additional benefits of technical facility
management.
2 Renewable Forms Used in Contracting
Statistics published by the German Association of Heating Energy Suppliers (VfW

e.V.) (http://www.energiecontracting.de) provide an overview of the shares attrib-
utable to different forms of renewables in the supply of heating energy and
electricity in the contracting market. The statistics show that almost 7 % of heating
energy in contracting projects across Germany came from renewables in 2014. That
corresponds to a connected wattage of 1575 MW for thermal energy. The connected
wattage for electrical energy in contracting projects using renewables amounted to
around 205 MW in 2014. Solid biomass in the form of timber accounts for by far the
largest share of renewables, followed by biogas and wind power (Fig. 1). Photovol-
taic (PV) systems have only played a subordinate role to date.
The following sections deal in detail with the individual forms of renewables and
their suitability for use in the contracting business.
2.1 Photovoltaics (PV)
PV systems only generate electricity. This can either be fed into the grid or used to
cover the generator’s own needs. A number of business models are available on the
market for both options, and these are offered both to commercial and industrial
customers and to private households. What all models have in common is the goal
of using suitable surfaces at prospective customers to generate solar power and
eliminating the hurdle of system financing and operating and maintenance risk on
behalf of customers. However, these models only constitute contracting when the
electricity generated in the PV system is also used by customers themselves. Here,
use is generally made of the lease model described in Sect. 1.2.
Until just a few years ago, the more attractive model in economic terms was to
feed electricity into the grid. This was because of the high rates of compensation
paid. The marked cuts in solar power subsidies in recent years on the one hand and
Fig. 1 Percentage share of

renewable fuels used in
contracting market: status
2014 (http://www.
energiecontracting.de/6-
verband/wir-ueber-uns/vfw-
in-zahlen.php)
178 R. Kl€
the sharp rise in electricity procurement prices (mainly owing to the levy charged
under the German EEG) on the other hand mean that new PV systems are often only
economically viable when the electricity generated is primarily used for proprietary
needs, thus reducing the volume of electricity procured externally.
As a general rule, the use of PV systems remains highly dependent on the legal
framework. Alongside the volume of solar power subsidies, this also includes levies
charged under the EEG for electricity resulting from proprietary generation. How-
ever, electricity generation costs associated with PV systems are expected to
decrease further in the medium term, thereby also reducing their dependence on
subsidies.
2.2 Solar Heating
With solar heating systems there is no alternative to using the heating energy
generated in the immediate vicinity of the system. This means that solar heating
systems are basically suited for supplying heating energy in contracting solutions.
To achieve sufficiently high supply reliability irrespective of weather conditions,
however, such systems must always be combined with other heating energy gener-
ation systems. This results in more complex systems technology than for PVs and
means that contracting solutions are mainly relevant for municipal and industrial
customers. However, solar heating finds only very limited application among these
customers. This is due to the significantly higher specific heating energy production
costs resulting from high volumes of investment when compared with conventional
fuels such as natural gas. Not only that, fewer subsidy options exist for this
approach (market incentive programme).
One key motivation for using solar heating systems is provided by the
requirements of the German Renewable Energy Heating Energy Act (EEWärmeG),
which calls for a share of heating and cooling energy to be generated from
renewables. However, these requirements only apply to public and residential
buildings.
2.3 Biogas
When it comes using biogas,1 a distinction can be made between the two following
deployment options:
a) Deployment as biomethane (bio-natural gas) that is fed directly into the natural
gas grid and can theoretically be used to generate electricity and heating energy
at any supply point;
1
Sewage, landfill and mine gas constitute special forms of biogas that will not be considered
separately here. Generally speaking, these fuels can be used in contracting in the same way as
biogas.
b) Deployment as biogas for direct use at a supply plant in the direct vicinity of the
biogas plant (electricity and heating energy).
Biomethane generation requires greater technical input to achieve the quality

needed for the gas to be fed into the natural gas grid. This model nevertheless offers
the advantage that customers not directly in the vicinity of the biogas plant can also
be supplied with electricity and heating energy from biogas-powered energy supply
plants.
Both models are basically suitable for contracting solutions, with the supply of
heating energy to the customer generally forming the basis for the arrangement. The
electricity is fed into the grid and paid for in line with the provisions of the EEG.
Given significantly higher fuel prices for biogas compared with natural gas, the
feed-in compensation is also a prerequisite for offering economically viable biogas-
based supply solutions. The subsidy cuts introduced in the current amendment to
the EEG legislation (2014) nevertheless mean that biogas-based supply solutions
will in future be economically viable only in special cases. Such solutions will
therefore hardly offer any further potential for use in contracting solutions.
2.4 Solid Biomass
The use of solid biomass in the form of timber and waste timber to generate energy
has gained enormously in significance in recent years. While virtually no more fuel
volumes are available on the waste timber market in Germany, depending on the
quality and region involved, timber fuels still hold potential for further expanding
the generation of energy from biomass.
The available plant technology permits the use of a very wide range of different
fuel qualities and offers a suitable incineration technology for nearly all kinds of
timber fuel. Energy generation then involves either the combined generation of
electricity and heating energy or the generation of heating energy alone. Particu-
larly when the heating energy is used to heat residential and public buildings,
timber-powered boiler plants offer suitable potential to meet the requirements of
the EEWärmeG legislation.
Given its wide-ranging flexibility in different heating levels and heating media,
timber is very well suited for use as a fuel in contracting solutions. However, such
solutions are restricted almost exclusively to industrial or municipal customers and
large residential buildings. The expertise required to generate energy from solid
biomass and experience in operating complex plants can be offered to customers as
an attractive added value, as can plant financing and fuel procurement. Not only
that, the contractor also assumes responsibility for assuring the quality of the fuel as
one of the key prerequisites for ensuring adequate plant availability levels. That
said, additional potential for deploying biomass will be determined not least by
developments in wood pellet and wood chip prices, as well as in prices for
conventional fuels such as natural gas and heating oil.
180 R. Kl€
2.5 Biogenic Residues
One special form of solid biomass that should be mentioned at this point is the
possibility of generating energy from biogenic residues. These are mainly incurred
in the food and beverage industry and include grain mill waste, such as husks,
residues from oil mills and grape marc. Given the different volumes and qualities of
residues arising at individual production locations, these fuels are chiefly suited for
use in the generation and consumption of heating energy at the respective location
and thus offer a good basis for contracting solutions. Generating heating energy
from these very different residues generally requires customised firing
technologies. These are available on the market from various plant manufacturers.
However, companies have significantly less experience with operating this kind of
plant than timber-powered biomass plants. Particularly for this kind of plant
concept, contracting can offer clear benefits to customers because experienced
contractors have the expertise needed to plan and operate such plants and manage
the risks associated with using biogenic residues.
Whether economically viable concepts can be developed for generating energy
from these kinds of residues, however, depends on the heating requirements at the
given production site. To a very great extent, it also depends on whether other
options are available for using the residues (material recovery/recycling), as well as
on the relationship between the technical input required to market the product and
the potential revenues.
2.6 Geothermal Energy
In Germany, geothermal energy is used above all to generate heating and cooling
energy. As a general rule, it is therefore also suitable for use in contracting
solutions. With installed capacity of around 4.2 GW of thermal energy output for
heating energy generation, Germany already holds the fifth position in international
rankings (http://www.geothermie.de/aktuelles/geothermie-in-zahlen.html). Given
geological conditions in Germany, however, the generation of electricity from
geothermal sources currently still only plays a subordinate role.
The current political framework enables larger-scale geothermal plants to be
operated viably in many areas of Germany (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Geothermie). That said, these plants also carry a number of risks and have in the
past resulted in sometimes considerable damage to buildings in their immediate
vicinity. Despite its promotion in the market incentive programme, the full costs
involved mean that the use of near-surface geothermal energy to heat or cool
buildings by means of heat pumps can only compete with solutions based on
conventional fuels in individual cases that offer ideal conditions. Geothermal
energy is nevertheless already being put to widespread use. The requirements of
the EEWärmeG offer potential for using geothermal energy pump plants above all
in private and municipal contexts. In an industrial context, however, geothermal
energy pumps and plants generally play a very minor role. The key focus here is
usually on using industrial waste heat sources.
Given these factors, providers of contracting solutions for geothermal plants do
operate in the market, but the share of the contracting market attributable to such
plants is currently still low.
2.7 Wind Power
Wind turbines only generate electricity. For conventional turbines with capacities
greater than 100 kW, the electricity generated is usually fed into the grid and not
earmarked for use by any specific customer. This means that traditional wind
turbines that feed electricity into the grid do not offer a basis for contracting
solutions.
On the other hand, smaller wind turbines with capacities less than 100 kW have
played an increasingly significant role for several years now when it comes to using
wind power. These mostly involve vertical turbines that are very quiet and already
start up at low wind speeds. Given their size, these turbines even offer interesting
potential for use in a private context. The number of these small wind turbines is
growing rapidly in wind-rich regions. In Germany, for example, an estimated total
of 10,000 such turbines had already been installed by 2010 (http://www.klein-
windkraftanlagen.com). It nevertheless remains to be seen whether these plants
will also play a more major role in contracting solutions.
In principle, if the electricity is put to proprietary use, then the contracting
models available for wind turbines are similar to those for PV systems. Because
companies are usually not able to develop wind power projects with just their own
resources, suitable service offerings by contractors may provide a good incentive
for using wind power. According to an investigation carried out by EnergieAgentur.
NRW, the reluctance to draw on wind power contracting is largely attributable to
the political and planning law framework, which is subject to frequent changes
(EnergieAgentur.NRW, “Windenergie-Contracting in NRW”, May 2015).
2.8 Hydropower
Hydropower plants represent another solution; such plants generate only electricity
and generally feed it into the grid. They therefore do not offer a basis for contracting
solutions. One exception relates to small-scale hydropower plants that can also be
used for proprietary electricity generation. In this case, contracting solutions are
conceivable in principle. However, the potential for this kind of plant in Germany
must be questioned and depends, among other factors, on the availability of
corresponding water rights.
182 R. Kl€
3 Using Renewables in Contracting: Key Factors

and Challenges
Cores aspects of Germany’s energy turnaround includes raising renewables’ share

of energy consumption and the associated expansion in the decentralised energy
supply. To support the successful implementation of this turnaround, the govern-
ment has introduced a number of subsidies aimed not only at expanding the use of
renewables but also at enhancing energy efficiency and saving energy. These
measures are intended to create a basis for making the use of renewables economi-
cally viable.
Despite the availability of subsidies for renewables, however, companies often
face a number of hurdles that must be overcome when implementing corresponding
projects. These include:
• Lack of trust in economic viability of renewables,

• Lack of relevant expertise,
• Lack of access to fuels potentially required,
• Financing,
• Supply of suitably qualified operations staff,
• Technical, approval law and economic risks,
• Organisational input.
Contracting provides potential users with the possibility of overcoming these

hurdles and thus smoothes the way for companies to use renewables (Sect. 1.1).
That said, the decision as to whether renewables can be used to satisfy a supply
requirement is usually not taken by the contractor. The role of the contractor is
rather to design a customised plant concept that enables the customer to be securely
supplied with energy and utilities in line with its requirements. As a general rule,
customers give priority to inexpensive energy and utility supply solutions. When
devising plant concepts, the contractor assesses whether renewables can also be
viably used within the relevant legal framework.
Alongside cost factors, there are further criteria depending on the customer
group that significantly influence the selection of the relevant plant concept and
use of renewables. Distinctions can be made, for example, between industrial, real
estate and municipal customers. These are presented in Table 2.
Table 2 Decision-making criteria when selecting plant concept or renewables

Customer group Decision criteria
Industrial Energy and utility requirements, carbon footprint, costs, risks, plant
customers complexity, availability
Real estate Energy pass (appreciation in property value), requirements of EEWärmeG
customers legislation, costs
Municipal Energy pass (appreciation in property value), requirements of EEWärmeG
customers legislation, costs, climate protection targets
While real estate and municipal customers draw on renewables chiefly to meet
legal requirements (EEWärmeG), the decisive factor for industrial customers is the
cost of their supply of energy and utilities. Particularly when they compete on an
international level, companies tend to focus on ensuring low energy and utility
prices. In this case, renewables are only selected when, drawing on all subsidy
options, they make it possible to implement inexpensive supply concepts.
For contractors, financing requirements in particular play a key role in deter-
mining prices for supplying energy and utilities. These depend primarily on the way
in which the necessary investments are to be financed. The prospective contractee
may have access to more favourable financing options than the contractor. How-
ever, the contractor may be able to offer its customers added value compared with
in-house solutions. Viewed as a whole, therefore, these would not be cheaper for the
customer.
One challenge when using renewables relates to the structuring of price adjust-
ment clauses in contracting agreements in cases where the electricity is subsidised
under the EEG. Here, fuel price increases may only be compensated for via
revenues from heating energy since the EEG compensation paid for electricity
remains fixed for the whole subsidy period. Particularly when the EEG compensa-
tion accounts for a high share of total revenues, the resultant disproportionate
increases in heating energy prices may be difficult to communicate to customers.
That said, customers face this disadvantage regardless of whether they opt for a
contracting solution.
With regard to the legal framework, risks relate above all to amendments in the
relevant subsidy laws. However, owing to the protection of the status quo still
applicable for plants already in operation, these risks are limited to the period
within which legislative amendments are prepared and adopted. During these
periods, investment decisions are usually not taken and projects already planned
are implemented faster to enable existing subsidy regulations to be drawn
on. Should future legislative amendments nevertheless infringe on the protection
of the status quo, then the resultant insecurity among investors would have unfore-
seeable consequences for the further expansion in renewables and their use in the
contracting market.
4 Renewables Contracting in Practice: Select Examples
4.1 Solar Heating
The construction of a new gastronomy business in 2010 also involved installing an

energy centre to supply the restaurant with heating energy. The municipal council
required the building to meet so-called green building standards and be fully
supplied with heating energy from renewables in the context of an energy supply
contracting solution. The tasks performed by the contractor included designing,
planning, building and financing the necessary plant technology and supplying the
restaurant with heating energy.
184 R. Kl€
Table 3 Select project data of contracting concept for energy supply to a gastronomy business
Project data Figure
Plant investment € 194 k (€ 144 k subsidies)
Contractual term 15 years
Installed heating energy capacity 100 kW timber; 60 m2 collector surface
Pellet requirements 20 t/a
Heating energy turnover 100 MWh (26 MWh solar)
CO2 savings 55 t/a
Invoicing Basic charge and volume-dependent price
Because of the high volume of warm water required and the minimum supply
temperature of 65 C, a CPC vacuum tube collector system directly linked to the
heating buffer storage was selected for the base load supply. Medium and peak
loads are covered by a wood pellet boiler. Select project data are summarised in
Table 3.
The project was implemented by MVV EnergySolutions in 2010 and exemplifies
a classic contracting approach to supplying a customer with renewables. In this
case, the decision to work with renewables was determined by the requirements of
the municipal council. As a result, the economic viability of the solution was not
compared with that of conventional fuels.
4.2 Biogas (Biomethane)
The biogas project described here was based on an invitation for tenders issued by a
public sector organisation that involved taking over the entire heating energy
supply in the context of an energy supply contracting solution. The contractor
was required to plan the supply concept, install and finance the necessary plant
technology and ensure the heating energy supply to the customer’s properties. The
building for the energy centre would be provided by the state government.
The exclusion criteria set by the customer for the supply concept included
compliance with EEWärmeG and a primary energy factor of 0.5 for the heating
energy supply. For logistical reasons, the customer excluded the use of solid
biomass, as a result of which the primary energy factor requirements could only
be met by using biomethane.
Consistent with the conditions set by the customer and subsidy options, MVV
EnergySolutions submitted a concept in which the heating energy would be sup-
plied by two biomethane combined heat and power (CHP) plants with an electrical
capacity of 750 kW each and two natural-gas-powered boilers.
The CHP plants would be installed 1 year apart to enable both plants to be
assessed as individual plants under the current requirements of the EEG. This would
guarantee higher EEG compensation and make it possible to offer a more
favourable heating energy price.
Table 4 Select project data of contracting concept for energy supply to public sector organisation
Project data Figure
Planned plant investment € 2.9 million
Planned contractual term 15 years
Installed heating energy capacity 9.6 MW
Installed electricity capacity 1.5 MW
Natural gas input 6 GWh/a
Biomethane input 23 GWh/a
Electricity generation (EEG) 8,626 MWh/a
Heating energy turnover 14,000 MWh/a
CO2 reduction potential 3,200 t/a
The electricity generated by the CHP plants would be fully fed into the grid for
general supply and would receive constant compensation over a 20-year period
pursuant to current EEG provisions.
In their final state, the CHP plants would have provided almost 60 % of the
desired heating energy. Select project data are presented in Table 4.
This project was not implemented, but it nevertheless illustrates a classic
contracting approach to supplying heating energy to a customer on a renewable
basis. Here, too, the use of biomethane was determined by customer requirements.
4.3 Solid Biomass
Based on a need to convert its existing energy centre owing to the expiry of the
relevant approvals, in 2009 a public sector organisation issued an invitation for
tenders for the supply of heating energy to its properties in the context of an energy
supply contracting solution. In addition to heating energy in the form of heating
water, the invitation for tenders also provided for the supply of permeate and
concentrate and the operation and maintenance of the local hot water grid. The
necessary operations staff for the heating plant would be provided by the customer
by way of a personnel agency agreement. Furthermore, with regard to the renewal
of the heating energy generation plants, the customer wanted the contractor to meet
the legal requirements in force since January 2009 with respect to the use of
renewables upon construction of additional buildings (EEWärmeG). The contractor
would also be required to ensure the necessary planning and financing, the conver-
sion work and operations management at the energy centre.
Consistent with the conditions contained in the enquiry, MVV EnergySolutions
tendered and implemented a concept based on solid biomass. The technical concept
involved the following main measures:
• Dismantling of existing gas/oil boilers (fossil fuels),

• Construction of two timber-powered boilers of 10 MWt each based on solid
biomass (timber) to secure base load supply,
• Construction of a timber store
186 R. Kl€
Table 5 Select project data of contracting concept for energy supply to public sector organisation
Project data Figure
Planned plant investment € 12 million
Planned contractual term 20 years
Installed heating energy capacity (timber) 20 MW
Installed heating energy capacity (gas/oil) 51 MW
Timber input 132 GWh/a
Gas/oil input 3 GWh/a
Heating energy input 95,000 MWh/a
CO2 savings 24,000 t/a
Annual energy cost savings for customer 20 %
• Installation of a new gas/oil boiler (16 MWt) to cover peak loads,

• Continued use of an existing gas/oil boiler as a reserve,
• Installation of a heating energy storage facility,
• Gradual renovation of heating energy grid.
The biomass boiler was dimensioned in such a way as to facilitate high operating
hours and full utilisation while at the same time enabling scheduled inspection work
to be performed without incurring additional expenses for expensive secondary fuel
(gas or extra light heating oil). Following the complete conversion of the energy
centre, 95 % of heating energy is now generated using timber as a fuel, while the
remaining amount is covered by light heating oil or natural gas. Select project data
are presented in Table 5.
The concept implemented not only enabled the requirements of the EEWärmeG to
be met in full. It has also resulted in a less expensive supply of heating energy than
previously. In this case, the contractee benefited not only from an ecological perspec-
tive but also in economic terms from a sustainable supply concept based on renewables.
However, this state of affairs was only possible because the contractor was able to
secure corresponding volumes of timber on favourable terms upon conclusion of the
contract. Not only that, the plant technology planned and installed was capable of
working at high availability levels with the fuel quality thereby deployed.
4.4 Biogenic Residues
In response to a customer request, a concept for generating heating energy from

grain husks at a new production site was compiled for a grain mill operator in 2014.
This concept was to form the basis of a contracting offer.
The technical concept involved making use of the grain husks incurred as a
waste product during the grinding process. Previously, husks had been used as an
additive to fodder. The processing effort (grinding) required for this is relatively
high, however, and the customer faced difficulties in selling the grain husks in the
quantity incurred (around 20–25 t/d).
Table 6 Select project data for investigation of grain husk incineration as basis for supplying
steam to mill operator
Project data 1 t/h steam 2 t/h steam
Required plant investment € 1.0 million € 1.5 million
Natural gas costs saved € 235 k/a € 470 k/a
Grain husk fuel costs including ash disposal € 78 k/a € 155 k/a
Operating costs € 70 k/a € 77 k/a
Grain husk input 1,260 t/a 2,530 t/a
Steam requirement 6,500 t/a 13,000 t/a
Annual savings for customer € 35 k € 60 k
The grain mill also requires steam, which was currently to be provided from a
natural-gas-powered boiler. During the first stage of expansion, steam requirements
would remain constant at 1 t/h. Following further expansion in the production plant,
this figure would rise to 2 t/h.
The task now involved reviewing whether the grain husks could be used to
generate steam under the conditions outlined earlier and whether an economically
viable concept could be developed on this basis. In terms of fuel costs, the volume
of costs stated for the grain husks should correspond to the revenues previously
generated by the customer from using the husks as a fodder additive minus the
processing costs thereby avoided. No subsidies would be available for heating
energy generation in this case.
As a result of the investigations, the customer was shown that, assuming
sufficiently high steam requirements, the supply of steam from grain husks was
less expensive than using natural gas. The principal project data are presented in
Table 6.
To be economically viable, however, the use of grain husks presupposes a
minimum steam requirement of 2 t/h, a figure that would not be reached in the
first production phase. For this reason, the project was initially not pursued any
further. The concept nevertheless shows that under ideal conditions, the supply of
heating energy using regenerative fuels is also possible and that this approach holds
potential for contracting solutions.
5 Conclusion
Expanding the use of renewables is a key prerequisite for successfully

implementing the energy turnaround. Despite government subsidies, potential
users of renewables nevertheless face a number of challenges and risks. As an
innovative service model, contracting represents one way of assisting customers to
overcome existing hurdles and facilitate the use of renewables in their supply of
energy and utilities.
A variety of contracting models have become established in the market. These
offer customers a high degree of flexibility in terms of having their supply of energy
188 R. Kl€
and utilities structured by a service provider. The associated benefits for the
customer mean that contracting is an important instrument that can contribute to
the success of the energy turnaround.
As a general rule, however, it is not the contractor who decides whether
renewables will be used in contracting solutions. This decision is rather taken by
customers, who stipulate the requirements they have in their utility supply, and
lawmakers, who make the use of renewables mandatory and structure renewables
subsidies. Energy and utility prices are often the decisive criterion for customers
when selecting contractors. This means that opportunities for renewables only arise
when they can be put to economically viable use in inexpensive supply concepts.
The provision of a reliable and suitable subsidy framework by lawmakers still plays
a key role in this respect and will continue to do so in the medium term.
Ralf Kl€opfer has been a member of the Executive Board

of MVV Energie AG in Mannheim since 2013. He is
responsible for the sales division, to which the contracting
service provider MVV EnergySolutions GmbH is also
allocated. Before joining MVV Energie AG, he worked as
Managing Director at enevio GmbH. Prior to that, he held
various senior positions at EnBW in Karlsruhe for more than
15 years, most recently as Spokesman of the Management at
EnBW Vertrieb GmbH. He studied electrical technology,
majoring in energy technology, at the University of
Stuttgart.
Ulrich Kliemczak is an employee of MVV

EnergySolutions GmbH. As a planning engineer and project
developer, he has dealt with a wide variety of contracting
projects for more than 10 years now. As well as compiling
supply concepts and handling negotiations with customers, he
has also assumed technical project management for various
projects and accompanied and been responsible for planning,
building and launching operations at supply plants. Before
joining MVV EnergySolutions GmbH, he worked for two
years as a planning engineer at MVV Energie AG. He studied
environmental process engineering at Technische Universität
Bergakademie Freiberg, subsequently obtaining a doctorate
there in the field of energy process technology.
Renewable Energy in the Marketing
of Tourism Companies
Susanne Gervers
Abstract
The specific situation of tourism companies causes difficulties with regard to
sustainability. After all, their job is to sell perfectly staged counterworlds to
everyday life. In essence, the touristic experience invokes “the crossing of
boundaries”—spatially, socially, but also morally. The postulate of so-called
sustainable tourism—to “fully” take into consideration future economic, social,
and ecological requirements—resembles the squaring of a circle, at least for
those companies that attempt to create a “coherent overall picture” to satisfy the
demands of their customers. For that reason, tour operators face specific
difficulties when it comes to the adequate integration of positive approaches to
marketing renewable energy in their client-focused service packages. These
positive approaches certainly exist in the tourism value chain and can be used
to satisfy the minimum requirements for “sustainable” tourism, the criterion of
the Global Sustainable Tourism Council. The relevance of this difficulty can
even be demonstrated for a leading corporation in the field of tourism, Studiosus
Reisen München GmbH. This case study provides food for thought. What is
needed in the future to sustainably reduce tourism’s frequently evoked so-called
green gap?
Keywords
Sustainable tourism • Sustainable marketing • Tour operator management •
Touristic experience • Green gap in tourism
S. Gervers (*)
Hochschule für Wirtschaft und Umwelt Nürtingen-Geislingen, Geislingen an der Steige, Germany
e-mail: susanne.gervers@hfwu.de

190 S. Gervers
1 Introduction
On the occasion of the first fvw Online Marketing Day on 7 May 2014 in Cologne,
the best online marketing campaigns of tourism companies were honored. It was
noteworthy that none of the top 12 candidates even hinted at the topics of renewable
energy, climate change, or sustainability (see fvw, 09.05.2014, pp. 28ff.). Market-
ing takes its cues primarily from the wishes of customers or from the ideas of
companies about these wishes. What do tourism companies think about the wishes
of their customers? Apparently customers do not want to be reminded of climate
change and other problems; in tourism, the perfectly staged alternative to our daily
routine plays a specific role, or, as the head of a travel agency pointedly formulated:
“We want to sell the best weeks of the year and not optimal solutions to crises and
problems” (fvw, 27.02.2014, p. 13).
It is definitely not the case that climate change and sustainability are ignored by
the industry. Products such as the green rail card by Deutsche Bahn, which features
CO2 neutrality, are considered pioneers. The same is true of new products of the
sharing economy in the area of transport operations or lodging. However,
ecologically correct relaxation at home, let alone the trend to avoid travel, is less
likely to satisfy the deep-seated wishes of the guest. It may be the case that CO2
emissions can be compensated via so-called climate donations, but not the intercul-
tural exchange or the experience of the unknown and unfamiliar (and, thus, of one’s
identity). It does not exist without mobility across borders, interpreted in multiple
ways. And this may even imply that the standards and accomplishments of our
society, for example concerning climate protection and sustainability, are forgotten
during supposed the best weeks of the year.
“When making the booking decision, sustainability is irrelevant” (fvw,
14.03.2014, p. 74). It is more important to let the guest experience sustainability
on site, based on the principles of storytelling. It was a major conclusion at a
number of panel discussions at the ITB Congress 2014 in Berlin (fvw, 14.03.2014,
pp. 72–74) that the luxury segment offers the greatest potential for “sustainable”
tourism. To experience people in their local setting, for example energy generation
in a village in Calabria, is more likely to make the traveler aware of structures and
problems and to foster engagement and responsibility through personal contact.
What is the meaning of “sustainable” tourism, what is its official definition, and
what actors are involved along the value chain in tourism? What companies and
their marketing activities are of the greatest relevance for studying the topic of
“sustainable energy in tourism marketing”?
2 Tourism Companies and Sustainable Marketing
Meffert et al. (2012, p. 15) stress the sales focus of practitioners in the field
of tourism, even though marketing is currently seen in a much broader and
generic context. The definition of the American Marketing Association, which
Renewable Energy in the Marketing of Tourism Companies 191
was officially adopted in July 2013,1 explicitly makes reference to society at large
when entering into exchange relations. This should sound particularly familiar to
tourism companies since networks of various kinds are the main reference points
for their daily work. Networking is indispensable for tourism professionals since
they are required to work together with a number of different companies, societal
groups, and even directly with their customers in the course of providing their
services. For that reason, Pechlaner et al. (2011) appropriately point out the
importance of competent cooperation and networking, especially in regions and
destinations.
What exactly is sustainable marketing, and what is its precise meaning in the
tourism industry? Pomering et al. (2011, p. 959) describe sustainable marketing as a
development stage with lower target orientation than “sustainability management.”
To clearly highlight the aim of sustainability and to accept it without a doubt, a
“holistic perspective” is required, in the opinion of El Dief and Font (2010, p. 159);
this is where they observe the decisive criterion for differentiation from green
marketing and greenwashing, a term frequently cited in the tourism industry.
Such a holistic perspective requires the systematic pursuit of sustainability at all
levels of the corporation, not only in marketing. And indeed, internationally
accepted criteria with clear guidelines for action are in place for the tourism
industry. They allow categorization and assessment (GSTC 2012, 2013) and help
in meeting the target.
So what is meant by sustainable tourism? The environmental agency of the
United Nations (UN) developed the following formulation jointly with its special
agency, the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO):
Definition Start
Tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social and
environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the environment
and host communities (UNEP/WTO 2005, p. 12)
Definition Stop
The resulting demands on tourism marketing, namely, to take full account of

environmental aspects in addition to all social and economic considerations while
simultaneously satisfying the needs of customers, appears rather unrealistic against
the backdrop of the previously described industry setting. At its essence, the
tourism experience involves crossing boundaries—spatially, socially, but also
from a moral perspective. In all areas of multidisciplinary tourism research,
boundaries and borderline experience play a role; Pomering et al. (2011, p. 957)
explicitly refer to the importance of the marketing activities of tourism companies.
Boundaries give structure to a journey and our sense of time, and they allow us to
1
“Marketing is the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, deliv-
ering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at
large.” (AMA)
192 S. Gervers
leave the familiarity of the daily routine behind. The traveler—this is revealed by
contributions in tourism psychology—enters a different world:
The various forms of otherness consumed in tourism seem able (and are often purposely
produced) to satisfy desires that are hidden or otherwise repressed in tourists’ everyday
lives. (Picard and Di Giovine 2014, p. 23)
The touristic experience is characterized by abandoning the daily routine, by

“consuming” otherness and unfamiliar settings, and, thus, also by reassurance of
one’s own identity. What types of travel and what types of companies are most
informative about the topic of renewable energies in the marketing of tourism
companies? Not all activities of a traveler are considered to be part of tourism.
Tourism is defined as the temporary departure from the customary center of one’s
life. For the international statistical measurement of the social, cultural, and eco-
nomic phenomenon of tourism, the following official definition by the UNWTO2 is
used:
Definition Start
A visitor is a traveler taking a trip to a main destination outside his/her usual
environment, for less than a year, for any main purpose (business, leisure or other
personal purpose) other than to be employed by a resident entity in the country or
place visited. These trips taken by visitors qualify as tourism trips. Tourism refers to
the activity of visitors. (UN/UNWTO 2010, p. 10)
Definition Stop
Based on this definition, travel without a purpose (leisure travel) and travel that
has a specific aim (such as business travel) are not distinguished; both are consid-
ered to be tourism as long as additional requirements are met, such as the limitation
to 1 year. However, travel that takes place without a clearly defined purpose, such
as the classical vacation, which serves the vague aim of recreation, is more likely to
reveal a “coherent overall picture” of the phenomenon of tourism. In the business
travel segment, meanwhile, the marketing of renewable energy is prominently
positioned by the companies involved. The concept of green meetings, the
planning, organization, and implementation of so-called environmentally appropri-
ate events is increasingly developing into a flagship of companies and Germany as a
travel destination. While business travel also belongs to the tourism industry, it
must be differentiated from tourism in the narrow sense, which is defined by the
travelers’ extraordinary experiences and the importance of the unfamiliar for
personal identity.
So what types of companies should be studied, what segments most likely
represent a coherent overall perspective on travel and tourism, and who were the
guests of these companies? Tour operators undertake organizational, informational,
distributional, and social tasks in the source and target regions. Depending on the
2
The status of the UNWTO is that of a specialized agency of the United Nations. It is
headquartered in Madrid.
type and occasion of the journey, the tourism service chain includes different types
of service providers, but normally transportation and lodging companies. The tour
operators play a central role, since they combine the various offerings into a
comprehensive bundle of services, which they distribute independently. Even
though the share of so-called classical package tours has been steadily declining
for many years, while the independent gathering of information and the booking of
partial services online by travelers has been increasing at the same rate, tours
compiled by tour operators remain the most important type of organized vacation
at 42 % in the year 20133 (FUR 2014, p. 4). To obtain a consistent overall
perspective on travel and tourism, we should first take a closer look at the offerings
of the organizers, more precisely, the offerings of the providers in the segment of
leisure travel. In the tourism industry, a distinction is made between tourism (with
operators at the center) and business travel.
The operators deal with numerous additional tourism companies in their
offerings. Do these potential cooperation partners provide favorable conditions
for a “green” product of the operator? What is the importance of sustainability
targets such as an increase in the share of renewable energy for these companies? A
fragmented picture currently emerges among operators in the field of tourism
concerning the topics of climate change and renewable energy, which can be
outlined as follows:
2.1 Digression: Service Providers
2.1.1 Transport Providers
– With its strategy DB 2020, Deutsche Bahn AG positions itself as a “green”

company and actively promotes its role as an “environmental leader”: it is
planned that by the year 2050 all trains of Deutsche Bahn AG will operate
with 100 % electricity from regenerative sources.
– While the statement that long-distance coaches are the most environmentally
friendly means of transportation after trains is well accepted among tourism
professionals, this aspect is not found in the marketing materials. The providers
and their associations instead focus on a possible image change, now that new
and attractive target audiences have (re)discovered the bus as a means of
transportation, following the liberalization of long-distance bus services in
2013. Speakers at the annual industry meeting in Cologne, organized by RDA
International Coach Tourism Federation, primarily pointed out that coaches
are an inexpensive and safe means of transportation. The fact that it is an
“environmentally friendly” alternative to car, plane, or train was only a second-
ary consideration (RDA 2013). The German Tourism Association, the umbrella
organization of the tourism industry in Germany, meanwhile thinks that a
3
In 2005, this share was still 48 % (FUR 2014, p. 4).
194 S. Gervers
change in image is possible since the long-distance coach fits well with “new
travel behavior”: “environmentally conscious, more frequent and shorter travel”
(DTV).
– The adjustment process in light of the changing environmental situation is
particularly difficult for air carriers: to counter increasing costs and competitive
pressures, they still focus on technological solutions (“fuel efficiency”) but
currently do not adjust their business models. This is even true of Deutsche
Lufthansa AG, a company with exemplary activities in the UN Global Com-
pact. A joint public relations campaign aims at creating awareness about the
“high ecological efficiency of German air carriers” (Deutsche Lufthansa AG)
among people living in Germany. Roland Conrady, head of the ITB Berlin
Congress and president of the scientific association DGT,4 initially an air carrier
manager himself, sums it up in a presentation to numerous industry
representatives:
Major change in the transport sector seems unavoidable in the future. (Conrady,
15.05.2014)
2.1.2 Hospitality Industry
– Measures to conserve energy, even including zero-emission hotels, are also an

important topic in the hospitality sector owing to the high relevance of fixed
costs. Initially, the large and globally active hotel chains addressed the issue in
their marketing initiatives, for example the hotel company Hilton, which has
been in business since 1919 and currently operates 4661 hotels (Hilton 2016a).
The reduction of CO2 emissions was considered to be an important strategic aim
to cut costs and was pursued in cooperation with numerous partners. The
documentation and development of new management approaches aiming at a
reduction of CO2 is seen as an important marketing topic: Hilton, for instance,
claims to participate in specific projects that advance change in other industries
as well. The company also states that it bought carbon credits from a steel
producer from South Korea to offset carbon emissions caused by Hilton
customers’ meetings and events (Hilton 2016b). However, this should not be
seen as purely positive, since—similar to the compensation of CO2 emissions in
air travel—this apparently leads to a negative habituation effect instead of the
necessary change in consumption patterns needed in the long run (see
subsequent discussion on destinations). In business-to-business marketing,
meanwhile, purely economic criteria are listed, and not only by the German
hotel and restaurant association DEHOGA (2012) but also, for example, by the
much smaller marketing cooperation Green Hotels in the USA (Green Hotels
2016).
4
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Tourismuswissenschaft e.V.
Others may be too aggressive in highlighting the changing awareness and support
of ecological change, for example, Boutique Hotel Stadthalle Wien, according to its
own assessment the first city hotel with a zero global energy balance:
In the course of a year our boutique hotel creates the same amount of energy that we require
to run it. For this, we only use renewable energy sources like solar and photovoltaic panels,
ground water heat pumps and even three wind turbines. A calculation that is guaranteed to
pay off! (Hotel Stadthalle 2016, 2014b).
However, the company, which has been awarded a number of prizes for envi-
ronmental awareness and innovation over the previous years, must concede that the
required permits for the three wind turbines have not yet been granted by the city.
At any rate, this seems hard to imagine in the middle of a metropolitan area such as
Vienna. At the front desk, a fact sheet is available upon request that includes the
sentence: “We continue to hope that we will obtain the permits” (Hotel Stadthalle
2014c), while the text on its Website is formulated in the present tense:
Our new building is not only the perfect addition to the existing, thoughtfully renovated
period townhouse, but maintains a zero-energy balance as well. (Hotel Stadthalle 2014b).
Boutiquehotel Stadthalle very successfully works with this approach and is

co-founder of the marketing cooperation Sleep Green Hotels (Sleep Green 2016a,
b). According to the hotel, the guests, international city tourists, but also business
travelers, value these activities and make a conscious choice:
We are aware of the fact that everybody can support the environment. For that reason, our
guests sleep with a clear conscience at our place. (Hotel Stadthalle 2014a).
A sentence on the bill informs readers that by staying “at the zero-energy
balance hotel,” the traveler has helped the environment (Hotel Stadthalle 2014d).
2.1.3 Destinations
– For important source countries such as Germany, earthbound travel is gaining in

importance. The manifold reasons supporting this development include the
so-called demographic change, an increasing aging of the traveling population,
a growing attractiveness of domestic offerings, and, recently, the complex
security situation in international destinations. The changes surely do not stem
from travelers’ heightened environmental awareness or a new focus in the
marketing activities of tourism companies. A large number of existing offerings
do not point in that direction: particularly new entrants in the heavily contested
market for holiday travel continue to use all means to attract vacationers with a
love for travel from the rich source countries.
– As an example, new destinations such as Costa Rica attempt to position them-
selves in the important German source market as a trendy ecological travel
destination (CST 2014). This may seem strange, considering the CO2 balance
196 S. Gervers
of long-haul travel. While there is a theoretical possibility of voluntarily com-

pensating for personal CO2 emissions, for example via atmosfair or myclimate if
booking travel from TUI, the effects are nothing special. To achieve something
in practice, a certain element of compulsion is obviously needed, for example, a
surcharge on ticket prices. But the possibility of providing a compensation
payment should also be viewed critically as travelers may get the impression
that no behavioral change is needed and unnecessary long-haul travel is subject
to greenwashing (Schmücker 2011, p. 140).
– Climate change and travel that is low in CO2 emissions pose massive challenges
for a globalized tourism industry. At ITB Berlin, the world’s largest tourism
convention, the picture is mixed: At the ITB Congress as “the leading travel
industry think tank,” (ITB 2016) only a few, but clearly critical, statements were
made, for example, a keynote by the Swedish climate researcher G€ossling at
CSR Day (ITB 2016, p. 40). The official partner country of 2016, the Maldives,
meanwhile used slogans such as “. . .the sunny side of life” or “where the
weather is a dream” (Maledives 2016) and remained correspondingly guarded
on the topic of climate change during numerous appearances, including a panel
discussion in the context of the CSR Day. At any rate, environmentally con-
scious travel is frequently considered to be part of the luxury segment in the
tourism industry, as discussed in the introduction (Sect. 1). This seems rather
fitting.
This fragmented description at the level of operators reveals different strategies

and behavioral patterns of the providers in the tourism sector: a broad spectrum of
possible business partners is available to the independent organizer who manages
the travel package as a coherent unit and interacts with guests. When compiling an
offer, to what extent do tour operators take into consideration the bundling of
various components and the positive contributions of the providers? Organizing
travel is among the most creative activities in the broad field of tourism: to what
extent do organizers make use of their scope, to what degree do they address the
issue of renewable energy in their interactions with the guest? Once it has been
clarified that, from the perspective of the guests, tour operators are largely respon-
sible for the overall presentation of the tourism offering, the type of organizer and
the evaluation criteria need to be identified.
The customer preference for an environmentally conscious offering does exist in
principle—if no additional burdens are created: “Sustainability should not cost
anything” (Conrady 2014, p. 36). At the same time, 22 % of customers are consid-
ered to have an interest in sustainability and represent an attractive market segment
for tourism companies (Conrady 2014, p. 5). Tour operators frequently know too
little about their target audiences or about the available options for targeted market
cultivation. It also appears that there are significant research gaps. Specifically, a
theoretical framework is missing, which allows the structuring of issues such as
successful interaction with customers concerning sustainability in tourism, the
identification of organizers or types of companies that could be in charge of this
so-called educational task, and, finally, the identification of values and visions that
are likely to be of relevance in the future.
3 Uniform Criteria for Sustainable Tourism
D€ornberg et al. (2013, p. 13) estimate the number of tour operators5 in Germany at
1500, while the operator ranking of fvw (Dossier, 13.12.2013) lists 57 noteworthy
market participants for Germany. Little is known about the way they operate and
their distinguishing features. Worth mentioning at any rate is the broad range of
those companies in Germany: from small, albeit very professional, partnerships or
capital companies with 2000 travelers a year to vertically integrated groups, such as
TUI AG with TUI Deutschland and 7.5 million participants in 2013 (Ibid., p. 5).
While these companies also differ with respect to their portfolios and their quality
policy, some of them, despite all their differences, come pretty close to their own
aspirations of assuming a leading role in the field of sustainability. The individual
companies are quite different and include TUI AG, Studiosus Reisen München
GmbH, and forum anders reisen, a marketing cooperation of smaller tour operators.
While a direct comparison of these three companies might be very appealing, the
contribution of this paper is to clarify with the help of a corporate example how
difficult it is to actually “implement” the individual aims in applied business
practice. Considering the title of this contribution, the specific question must be:
To what degree is the topic of renewable energy present in the marketing of the
selected company? To what degree do the people in charge explicitly address the
issue? Is there any indirect coverage of the topic of climate change? Tour operators
are in a difficult position in this regard since, on the one hand, they are very close to
the needs and wishes of their clients while, on the other hand, they are far away and
have very little opportunity to influence them. According to D€ornberg et al. (2013,
p. 228):
During vacation travel, the customer is subjected to such sensory overload that he will
normally not be able to identify the factor in this complex service package which dominates
as a brand or image.
Prior to compiling the actual bundle of services, during the offer and information
phase, the organizers ought to look out for any opportunity to understand their
customers so that they can take all appropriate steps in planning and structuring
their Websites.
For the systematic incorporation of so-called green topics into the customer
dialogue, hotels and tour operators can utilize the criteria of the Global Sustainable
Tourism Council. They were developed in 2012 and are widely recognized at the
5
Tour operations as the main source of income, excluding those companies that organize travel as
a sideline job, only occasionally or without commercial purpose.
198 S. Gervers
international level. These criteria serve as global reference values for minimum
requirements and have been continually refined since 2007 in a cooperative process
that includes a total of 27 organizations, including the UNWTO and TUI AG: “The
minimum that any tourism business should aspire to reach” (GSTC 2012). These
Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria for Hotels and Tour Operators not only
formulate internationally recognized standards but also provide important pointers
concerning concrete implementation. With regard to the relevance of the topic of
renewable energy or the problem of climate change in corporate marketing, the
following criteria and indicators ought to be present in the Web presence of the
tour operator:
D1.3 Energy consumption is measured, sources are indicated, and measures are adopted to
minimize overall consumption and encourage the use of renewable energy.
IN-D1.3.a Total energy consumed, per tourist-specific activity (e.g., guest-night,
tourists), per source. Percentage of total energy used that is a renewable versus nonrenew-
able fuel. . ..
D2.1 Greenhouse gas emissions from all sources controlled by the organization are
measured, procedures are implemented to minimize them, and offsetting remaining
emissions are encouraged.
IN-D2.1.a Total direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions are calculated as far as
practical. The carbon footprint (emissions less offsets) per tourist activity or guest-night is
monitored. . ..
D2.2 The organization encourages its customers, staff, and suppliers to reduce
transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions.
IN-D2.2.a Customers, staff, and suppliers are aware of practical measures/opportunities
to reduce transport-related greenhouse gas emissions (GSTC 2013).
Since the topic of renewable energy also has strong societal relevance through a
regional focus and the development of local self-supporting communities, the
following point is also important:
B1 The organization actively supports initiatives for local infrastructure and social com-
munity development. . . (ibid.).
Does the company selected satisfy these minimum requirements of the Global
Sustainable Tourism Council, and do the responsible parties directly or indirectly
address the topic of renewable energy in their Web presence? The following section
presents the results of the Web analysis and makes the transition to a critical
reflection and categorization of these results.
4 Corporate Example
TUI AG, Studiosus Reisen München GmbH, and forum anders reisen consider
themselves to be leaders in the field of sustainability. Among these three very
different companies, the example of Studiosus stands out. It is one of only a handful
of tourism companies—the only tour operator in Germany until 2014—that actively
support the Global Compact of the UN and provide visible documentation of these
activities. In contrast to TUI Deutschland and forum anders reisen, Studiosus is a
pure operator of study tours, which implies certain demands on the quality of the
travel program and its organization by tour guides that are predominantly employed
by the company. The impeccable reputation of the company with respect to its
commitment to sustainability is also derived from the positive attitude toward a
solid medium-sized company in a very volatile and at times even shady environ-
ment. Study tour operators in general, and especially Studiosus in particular, appear
to be far removed from any suspicion of greenwashing.
4.1 Studiosus Reisen München GmbH
Studiosus is a family-owned medium-sized company, founded back in 1954 in

Munich. It is currently managed by the second generation and continues to enjoy
great success in the marketplace. Studiosus is the largest study tour operator in
Germany. It is characterized by innovative concepts (“extra tours”) as well as a
credible positioning regarding sustainability. Studiosus has been a member of the
UN Global Compact since 2007 and is additionally seen in the industry as a
benchmark for the implementation of sustainability measures. Consequently, it
has received numerous awards and prizes over the years. In 2013, Studiosus
received the CSR prize of the federal government in the category of medium-
sized companies (50–499 employees). For the first time, this prize was awarded to
“exemplary and innovative companies, which pursue a path of structuring their
entire business activity in such a way that social, ecological and economic
sustainability is achieved” (Studiosus 2014h).
Jointly with Marco Polo, Studiosus Reisen ranks 11th in the operator rankings of
fvw (Dossier, 13.12.2013, p. 5) and has sales of € 233 million and 90,620
customers. According to information obtained from the company, approximately
83 % (Studiosus 2014g) of the company’s study tours are sold via travel agencies in
Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. The products of Studiosus are study tours of
high quality with specialized tour guides, who are trained predominantly by
Studiosus.
However, an analysis of the Webpages of Studiosus reveals that the problems of
climate change and other aspects of renewable energy are described rather cau-
tiously at the product level.
– The search term “climate change” provides only one entry on the homepage: in
the year 2008, Studiosus received an award from GEO SAISON for the tour
“The Alps and climate change” (Studiosus 2014b). This tour is no longer
offered.
– The search term “renewable energy” similarly provides one entry: in a press
release, Studiosus highlights a new offering, a study tour to Calabria with the
title “Italy’s wild tip of the boot.” Included is the sentence:
200 S. Gervers
Furthermore, the Studiosus tour manager also points out social topics of the region: What is
the role of alternative energy and environmental protection in the South of Italy? And how
big is the influence of the Mafia in Calabria? (Studiosus 2014d)
The catalogue does not allow these types of search terms. “Calabria” yields the
following result:
– The tour offering initially contains no suggestions concerning “alternative

energy and environmental protection.” Furthermore, it involves air travel
(8 days), and on the relevant pages of the catalogue, no data about the CO2
balance of this trip are provided (Studiosus 2014e). While no information is
given concerning possible compensating payments for air travel, travel by bus
and train is designated as climate neutral “via CO2 compensation” (Studiosus
2014e).
– The detailed description of the trip is not easily located (under “print function”),
but it contains no references to renewable energy. During the ridge walk on the
Monte Tiriolo, which is described as challenging, the guests can look out at the
end a 360-degree panorama . . .
. . . and observe wind turbines in the distance. What is the role of alternative energy and
environmental protection in the South of Italy? Ask your tour manager! In the village, the
weaving looms rattle just like they did in the old days. (Studiosus 2014c)
Following Müller and Mezzasalma (Müller 2007, pp. 169ff), minimum

requirements are in place for the marketing mix of tour operators with an ecological
orientation:
1. Resource-efficient, low-emission means of transportation are selected

(PRODUCT).
• Studiosus makes this choice available but does not reference it in the descrip-
tion of the travel offering or in the detailed description of the tour. The
information is only provided in the general travel directions. At this point,
the decision in favor of the tour has factually been made.
2. The company supports products that are environmentally friendly, for example,
by favoring these products in their offering or by a CO2 compensation, which is
included in the price (PRICE).
• At € 1440 per person (if applicable plus surcharge for air travel) for 8 days
full of adventures and support from a tour manager, which is equivalent to a
daily price of €180, this study trip is well priced for the organizer, but at the
same time not unreasonably expensive from the perspective of the guest.
There is no incentive to select earthbound travel as the standard version and
no CO2 compensation is included.
3. Distribution only plays a minor role, for example, by producing the catalogues in
an environmentally conscious manner. However, McKercher et al. (2014) dem-
onstrate for the case of Hong Kong that both employees at the service desk as
well as distribution managers tend to completely ignore the problems of climate

change. This is most likely due to the fact that the higher fees imply a preference
for selling expensive long-distance travel6 (DISTRIBUTION).
• If Studiosus sells 83 % (Studiosus 2014g) of the tours via travel agencies and
additional tours via nontraditional outlets, their influence is reduced
considerably.
4. The company provides its guests with decision tools that are easy to follow, for
example, environmental certificates, the CO2 balance of the tour, reports about
the environmental situation at the destination, or suggestions for behavior
(COMMUNICATION).
• Travel, particularly study tours, is a product that requires a large amount of
information. While Studiosus is very transparent about its operations and
products, it does not directly address the problematic issue of climate change
when presenting individual tours. This is done much later. It would be an
interesting question to check whether this approach serves the aim of
sustainability and to what extent this is pursued systematically. An operator
of study tours would most likely also be able to “educate” his guests without
bothering them.
The search term “green energy” provides advice about ecologically sound ways
of traveling to a destination and the possible offset of greenhouse gas emissions
under “journey to destination.” Information is also provided about the fact that
airplanes cause the most harm to the climate among all means of transportation
(Studiosus 2014a). The required compensation amount was already calculated and
it would be easy to include it in the booking. Alternatively, it would be just as easy
to calculate the individual values for each trip as well as the needed compensation
payments with only a few clicks. On this occasion, Studiosus stresses that all
business travel of its own employees is also calculated and compensated. All CO2
compensations of the company and its customers finance the construction of biogas
plants in southern India. This is done through a charitable organization (Studiosus
Foundation e.V.) and in cooperation with the Swiss climate protection agency
myclimate and provides high visibility for the company’s efforts at climate
protection.
The search terms “environmental protection,” “ecology,” and “sustainability”
produce no hits in the packages section. Instead, fairly comprehensive details about
ecologically responsible program planning are contained in the general information
about the company. Studiosus organizes air travel with minimum stays of 3 nights,
and the length of stays in the destination area exceeds the customary value by 25 %
according to the company. Given the demands of older target audiences for study
tours, however, this appears to mostly make economic sense.
Conclusion Start
6
Travel agencies act as agents and receive a fee of 10 % on average.
202 S. Gervers
The relevant criteria of the Global Sustainable Tourism Council were only
partially satisfied: criteria D1.3 and D2.1 with indicators IN-D1.3.a and IN-D2.1.
a (Sect. 3) were not satisfied, criterion D2.2 with indicator IN-D2.2.a (Sect. 3) only
very marginally; criterion B.1 meanwhile, which relates to social sustainability
initiatives, such as the use of climate donations to build biogas installations in the
south of India, was obviously fulfilled. This criterion perfectly matches the self-
image and market positioning of Studiosus:
“We consider it our task to build bridges across inner and outer boundaries with
the aim of creating true intercultural understanding” (Studiosus 2014f).
Conclusion Stop
5 A Brief Summary
Very little research exists on tour operators; for that reason they are considered a
type of “black box” in the tourism industry. Do they remain consciously or
unconsciously vague on the issue of bridging the “green gap” in tourism? While
numerous studies, including the annual travel analysis “Reiseanalyse” (FUR 2014,
p. 6), stress the relevance of so-called green topics for customers of tourism
companies, there appears to be little willingness to pay more or to make voluntary
CO2 compensation payments (Conrady 2014, pp. 5, 36). Individual participants
along the service chain of the tourism industry, as well as customers, always see the
responsibility as lying elsewhere or, when in doubt, with political leaders. Tour
operators, as they even argue themselves during specialist conferences, also have an
“educational role” to play. Due to their exposed position in the service chain and the
proximity to the needs and wishes of their clients, this is certainly accurate.
So what is missing? Tour operators shape encounters and much more, but they
are practically invisible when those encounters actually happen; only local people
and circumstances matter. During and after a trip, they are normally contacted only
in case of a complaint. Tour operators need to inquire about the topics and means
needed to enter into a more intense discussion with their customers about suitable
and ethically acceptable methods. This would require considerable effort, however,
including openness, creativity, and entrepreneurial spirit.
References
American Marketing Association. (2014). Definition of marketing. Accessed June 20, 2014, from
https://www.ama.org/AboutAMA/Pages/Definition-of-Marketing.aspx, quoted as: AMA.
Boutiquehotel Stadthalle Wien. (2014a). Das weltweit 1. Stadthotel mit Null-Energie-Bilanz.
Accessed September 09, 2014, from http://www.hotelstadthalle.at/null-energie-bilanz, quoted
as: Hotel Stadthalle, 2014b.
Boutiquehotel Stadthalle Wien. (2014b). Fact sheet. Unpublished manuscript, quoted as: Hotel
Stadthalle, 2014c [On-site request of the author, 26 August2014].
Boutiquehotel Stadthalle Wien. (2014c). Bill Nr. 63338, 27 August 2014. Unpublished manu-
script, quoted as Hotel Stadthalle, 2014d.
Boutiquehotel Stadthalle Wien. (2016a). Das Weltweit 1. Stadthotel mit Null-Energie-Bilanz.

Accessed April 28, 2016, from https://www.hotelstadthalle.at/nachhaltigkeit/null-energie-
bilanz-hotel/, quoted as: Hotel Stadthalle.
Boutiquehotel Stadthalle Wien. (2016b). Das umweltbewusste Hotel mitten in Wien. Accessed
September 09, 2014, from http://www.hotelstadthalle.at/nachhaltigkeit, quoted as: Hotel
Stadthalle, 2014a.
Conrady, R. (2014, May 15). Corporate Social Responsibility in der touristischen
Wertsch€ opfungskette: Status Quo, Trends, Herausforderungen, Keynote zur Jubiläumstagung
„Verantwortliche Gestaltung der Zukunft—Innovative Ansätze für die Destinations- und
Standortentwicklung“ des Lehrstuhls Tourismus/Zentrum für Entrepreneurship der
Katholischen Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt in Ingolstadt. Presentation published at:
Accessed June 21, 2014, from http://www.ku.de/fileadmin/150306/css/Jubil%C3%
A4umstagung/Conrady.pdf
Deutsche Bahn AG. (2014). Erneuerbare Energien. Accessed June 21, 2014, from http://www.
deutschebahn.com/de/nachhaltigkeit/oekologie/klimaschutz/Erneuerbare_Energien/, quoted
as: DB.
Deutsche Lufthansa AG. (2014). Die-Vier-Liter-Flieger: Gemeinsame Kampagne der deutschen
Luftfahrt. Accessed June 21, 2014, from http://www.lufthansagroup.com/de/themen/die-vier-
liter-flieger.html
Deutscher Hotel- und Gaststättenverband e.V. (2014). Energiesparen leicht gemacht. Accessed
June 22, 2014, from http://www.dehoga-bundesverband.de/fileadmin/Inhaltsbilder/
Publikationen/ Broschuere_Energiesparen_ leicht_ gemach t_Okt_2012_final.pdf, quoted as:
DEHOGA 2012.
Deutscher Tourismusverband e.V. (2014). Der Fernbus rollt durch Deutschland. Accessed June
21, 2014, from http://www.deutschertourismusverband.de/themen/bustouristik.html, quoted
as: DTV.
von D€ornberg, A., Freyer, W., & Sülberg, W. (2013). Reiseveranstalter-Management. Funktionen,
Strukturen, Management. München: Oldenbourg.
El Dief, M., & Font, X. (2010). The determinants of hotels ‘marketing managers’ green marketing
behavior. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18, 157–174. forum anders reisen (2014).
Reiseperlen. Accessed June 23, 2014, from http://konradinheckel.tpk6.de/smart2/pub/
reiseperlen-2014
FUR Forschungsgemeinschaft Urlaub und Reisen e.V. (2014). ReiseAnalyse 2014. Erste
Ausgewählte Ergebnisse der 44. Reiseanalyse zur ITB 2014. Accessed June 14, 2014, from
http://www.fur.de/fileadmin/user_upload/RA_Zentrale_Ergebnisse/RA2014_ErsteErgebnisse_
DE.PDF, quoted as: FUR.
fvw-magazin 10/14. (2014, May 09). fvw-magazin 06/14 (2014, March 14). fvw-magazin 05/14
(2014, February 27).fvw -magazin (2013, December 12). Dossier “Deutsche Veranstalter
2013”, quoted as: Dossier.
Global Sustainable Tourism Council, Washington (2012, February 23). Global sustainable tour-
ism criteria for hotels and tour operators, Version 2. Accessed June 14, 2014, from http://
www.gstcouncil.org/images/pdf/gstc-hto-indicators_v2.0_10dec13%20.pdf, quoted as: GSTC
2012.
Global Sustainable Tourism Council, Washington. (2013, December 10). Global sustainable
tourism criteria for hotels and tour operators—suggested performance indicators. Draft
Version 2.0. Accessed June 14, 2014, from http://www.gstcouncil.org/images/pdf/ global%
20sustainable%20tourism%20criteria%20h-to%20version%202_final.pdf, quoted as: GSTC
2013.
Green Hotels Association. (2016). Why should hotels be green? Accessed April 28, 2016, from
http://www.greenhotels.com/
Hilton Worldwide (2016a). Carbon factsheet. Accessed April 28, 2016, from http://cr.
hiltonworldwide.com/downloads/, quoted as: Hilton, 2016a.
204 S. Gervers
Hilton Worldwide. (2016b, March 31). Corporate fact sheet. Accessed April 28, 2016, from http://
www.hiltonworldwide.com/about/, quoted as: Hilton, 2016b.
Instituto Costarricense de Turismo. (2014). Nachhaltigkeit CST. Accessed June 22, 2014, from
http://www.visitcostarica.com/ict/paginas/sostenibilidad.asp?tab¼4, quoted as: CST.
ITB Berlin. (2016). Der ITB Kongress 09.- 11. 03. 2016. Accessed May 05, 2016, from http://
www.itb-kongress.de/Programm/ProgrammDownload/
Maledives. (2016). . . .the sunny side of life. Visit Maldives Year 2016. Accessed May 05, 2016,
from http://www.visitmaldives.com/de/
McKercher, B., Mak, B., & Wong, S. (2014). Does climate change matter to the travel trade?
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22, 685–704.
Meffert, H., Burmann, Chr., & Kirchgeorg, M. (2012). Marketing. Grundlagen marktorientierter
Unternehmensf€ uhrung. Konzepte—Instrumente—Praxisbeispiele (11th revised and expanded
ed.). Wiesbaden: Gabler.
€
Müller, H. (2007): Tourismus und Okologie. Wechselwirkungen und Handlungsfelder (3rd revised
ed.). München: Oldenbourg.
Pechlaner, H., Fischer, E., & Bachinger, M. (Eds.). (2011). Kooperative Kernkompetenzen.
Management von Netzwerken in Regionen und Destinationen. Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Picard, D. & Di Giovine, M. (2014) Introduction: Through other worlds. In: D. Picard & M. Di
Giovine (Eds.), Tourism and the power of otherness. Seductions of difference. Bristol: Channel
View.
Pomering, A., Noble, G., & Johnson, L. (2011). Conceptualizing a contemporary marketing mix
for sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19, 953–969.
RDA Workshop Touristik Service GmbH. (2013) Fernlinienbusverkehr in Deutschland—Erste
Bestandsaufnahme der Betreiber und Portale auf dem RDA-Workshop 2013. Accessed
June 21, 2014, from http://www.rdaworkshop.de/presse/detailseite-pressemeldungen/article/
fernlinienbusverkehr-in-deutschland-erste-bestandsaufnahme-der-betreiber-und-portale-auf-
dem-rda-w-1//104.html, quoted as: RDA.
Schmücker, D. J. (2011). Freiwillige Kompensation von Flugreisenemissionen als
nachfragerinduzierte Anpassungsstrategie—ein empirischer Anbietervergleich. Zeitschrift f€ ur
Tourismuswissenschaft, 3, 139–149.
Sleep Green Hotels. (2016a). Boutique-Hotel Stadthalle***, Wien. Accessed 28 April 2016,
from http://www.sleepgreenhotels.com/de/hotels/sleep-green-hotels/oesterreich/boutiquehotel-
stadthalle.html, quoted as: Sleep Green, 2016a.
Sleep Green Hotels. (2016b). Warum “Sleep green Hotels”? Accessed April 28, 2016, from http://
www.sleepgreenhotels.com/de/mitglied-werden.html, quoted as: Sleep Green, 2016b.
Studiosus Reisen München GmbH. (2014a). Ausgleich der Treibhausgas-Emissionen der
Fl€uge. Accessed June 21, 2014, from http://www.studiosus.com/Informationen/
WichtigeInformationen/Saison_2014/Anreise, quoted as: Studiosus, 2014a.
Studiosus Reisen München GmbH. (2014b). Auszeichnungen und Preise f€ ur das o€kologische
Engagement. Accessed June 23, 2014, from http://www.studiosus.com/Ueber-Studiosus/
Unternehmensprofil/Auszeichnungen, quoted as Studiosus, 2014b.
Studiosus Reisen München GmbH. (2014c). Druckansicht [Detailansicht WanderStudienreise
Kalabrien]. Accessed June 23, 2014, from http://www.studiosus.com/pdf/0469.pdf?
opsid¼1689521, quoted as: Studiosus, 2014c.
Studiosus Reisen München GmbH (2014d, April 17). Italiens wilde Stiefelspitze entdecken:
Kalabrien ist neu im Wanderprogramm von Studiosus. Accessed June 23, 2014, from
http://www.studiosus.com/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/Italiens-wilde-Stiefelspitze-entdecken-
Kalabrien-ist-neu-im-Wanderprogramm-von-Studiosus, quoted as: Studiosus, 2014d.
Studiosus Reisen München GmbH (2014e). Kalabrien—Italiens wilde Stiefelspitze.
WanderStudienreise Italien. Accessed June 21, 2014, from http://www.studiosus.com/
Reiseangebote/Reisefinder/%28ops_id%29/1689521/%28Reise%29/Kalabrien/?f¼b, quoted
as: Studiosus, 2014e.
Studiosus Reisen München GmbH. (2014f). Unternehmensleitbild. Accessed June 29, 2014, from
http://www.studiosus.com/Ueber-Studiosus/Unternehmensleitbild, quoted as: Studiosus,
2014f.
Studiosus Reisen München GmbH. (2014g). Mittelst€ andisches Unternehmen mit Tradition.
Accessed June 23, 2014, from http://www.studiosus.com/Ueber-Studiosus/Unternehmen
sprofil/Daten-Fakten, quoted as: Studiosus, 2014g.
Studiosus Reisen München GmbH. (2014h). Studiosus gewinnt begehrte Auszeichnung der
Bundesregierung. Accessed June 21, 2014, from http://www.studiosus.com/Ueber-Studiosus/
Unternehmensprofil/Auszeichnungen, quoted as: Studiosus, 2014h.
TUI AG. (2013, September 12). AG notiert erneut mit Bestplatzierung im Dow Jones
Sustainability Nachhaltigkeitsindex. Accessed June 23, 2014, from https://www.tui-group.
com/de/presse/presseinformationen/archiv/2013/20130912_Dow_Jones_Sustainability_Index.
United Nations Environment Programme/World Tourism Organization. (2005). Making tourism
more sustainable. A guide for policy makers. Accessed June 14, 2014, from http://www.unep.
fr/shared/publications/pdf/DTIx0592xPA-TourismPolicyEN.pdf, quoted as: UNEP/WTO.
United Nations Environment Programme/World Tourism Organization. (2012). Tourism in the
Green Economy. Background Report. Accessed June 20, 2014, from http://www.unep.org/
greeneconomy/Portals/88/documents/ger/ger_final_dec_2011/Tourism%20in%20the%20green_
economy%20unwto_unep.pdf, quoted as: UNEP/UNWTO.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division/World Tourism
Organization. (2010). International Recommendations for Tourism Statistics 2008, Studies in
Methods, Series M, No. 83/Rev. 1. Accessed June 14, 2014, from http://unstats.un.org/unsd/
publication/Seriesm/SeriesM_83rev1e.pdf#page¼21, quoted as: UN/UNWTO.
World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). (2014). Understanding tourism: Basic glossary.
Accessed June 14, 2014, from http://media.unwto.org/en/content/understanding-tourism-
basic-glossary, quoted as: UNWTO.
Prof. Dr. Susanne Gervers has been professor of tourism

management at Hochschule für Wirtschaft und Umwelt
Nürtingen-Geislingen since 2010. As the founder and man-
aging director of a tour operator, she has 11 years of applied
business experience, following a first exposure to the field of
tourism during her student years. In Bamberg, but mainly in
Heidelberg, York/England, and Hamburg, she studied polit-
ical science, public law, history, and sociology. She worked
at Universität der Bundeswehr in Hamburg and completed
her doctorate in economics and social sciences at
Universität Lüneburg supported by a stipend of the
Friedrich-Naumann-Foundation. In her role as university
professor, she studies questions of teaching methodology
and creativity research as well as new forms of tourism in
the sharing economy or the foundations of a theory of
tourism. In addition, she researches problems of ethics and
the management of innovations.
From Energy Supplier to Capacity Manager:
New Business Models in Green
and Decentralized Energy Markets
€rn Drechsler
Ben Schlemmermeier and Bjo
Abstract
This chapter concentrates on the description of new business models in green
and decentralized energy markets and derives recommendations for action for
energy suppliers—particularly municipal utilities, of which there are around
1000 companies in Germany. The chapter focus is outlined in the introduction
and clarified further by providing the authors’ vision concerning the future of the
energy sector. In what follows, the increasing importance of renewable and
decentralized energy production and the resulting necessity to further develop
the design of the power market in Germany—with reference to the current
energy policy—are described. Based on a short description of the main
capabilities of the electrical power system, the future core tasks, challenges,
and business models of energy companies are derived and explained with
reference to current market and regulatory developments. The chapter ends
with a description of strategic and organizational requirements needed by energy
companies to implement the new business models. In the summary, the main
aspects and success factors of viable business models for energy companies are
again highlighted.
Keywords
Business model • Renewable energy • Electricity market design • Capacity
management
B. Schlemmermeier (*) • B. Drechsler (*)
LBD-Beratungsgesellschaft mbH, Mollstraße 32, 10249 Berlin, Germany
e-mail: ben.schlemmermeier@lbd.de; bjoern.drechsler@lbd.de

208 B. Schlemmermeier and B. Drechsler
1 Introduction
1.1 The Energy Market Is a Political Market
The German energy sector crosses the bridge of the Energiewende (“energy transi-
tion”): the way back is blocked, since the earnings of many utilities are declining
significantly. Going forward, the bridge has not yet been completed, as the legal and
regulatory reforms that are turning the energy sector into a market for energy and,
thus, into a business are far from complete: the Renewable Energy Act
(Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz, EEG), Combined Heat and Power Generation Act
(Kraft-W€ arme-Kopplungs-Gesetz, KWKG), design of the electricity market, grid
usage charges, smart metering, energy efficiency, and emissions trading. While the
EEG 2014 had as its main focus the improved integration of renewable energy into
the energy market, the next revision (EEG 3.0), and thereby the switch to tendering
procedures, is already on the way (BMWi 2014a, p. 3). At the same time, the design
of the power market is being developed further and the entire system of grid usage
charges, levies, and fees in the pricing of electricity for the end user is being
challenged.
Since the beginning of market liberalization in Germany in 1998, there has never
been such a high degree of uncertainty in the energy sector concerning further
market developments and regulatory initiatives. In addition to the developments in
the regulatory framework for the German energy transition, climate protection
targets, innovations in energy technology, information and communication
technologies (digitization), and changing customer needs are the main drivers
behind the transformation of the energy sector. In this uncertain market environ-
ment, numerous energy suppliers, especially municipal utilities, face the challenge
of protecting the profitability of their existing business while at the same time
developing and implementing business models that assure a successful future.
1.2 Situation in the “Old World” of Energy Retailers
In the “Old World,” an energy supplier predominantly buys and sells electricity and
gas. This requires the ability to develop electricity and gas products, to handle them
operatively, and to sell them. Most of the innovative potential in the development of
this business model and product was accomplished long ago. Green electricity
rates, predominantly on the basis of certificates of origin, are a standard offering
of most utilities. New green electricity labels, which certify the sustainability of the
provider in addition to the product (TÜV Süd 2014), can again help to achieve
greater differentiation. These days, only electricity products that market renewable
electricity regionally continue to have a unique selling point. However, to market
electricity from sources that qualify under the Renewable Energy Act as green
electricity products, the relevant statutory instrument from EEG 2014 still needs to
be implemented. Other new and innovative offerings are based on the value-
oriented integration of private capacities into the market or the promise of
From Energy Supplier to Capacity Manager: New Business Models in Green and. . . 209
delivering (green) power to customers that comes from clearly identifiable sources
from a defined pool of installations. Business models like these are often described
as community power or sharing electricity. They depend largely on intelligent
metering systems and digitization of commercial processes and represent a specific
form of capacity management or virtual power plants (Sect. 4.3).
The traditional market for simple electricity and gas products will continue to
shrink owing to the growing trend toward decentralization. And since electricity
and gas discounters will not be able to raise prices to cover their costs of customer
acquisition and negative margins, they will leave the market. Pricing differences
and incentives to change suppliers will consequently be reduced. For the “Old
World” of energy retailing, this implies the need to radically simplify products,
communications, and customer management, including processes and information
technology (IT). To cope with the increasing digitization of everyday life and the
wishes of customers and to reduce costs, the traditional electricity and gas business
of the future will need to be processed online. Product management must become
quantitative in nature: margins and market shares need to be managed in a targeted
fashion. The main message is: be simple, efficient, and profitable.
1.3 Chapter Structure
This chapter begins with a brief overview of the current and future relevance of
decentralized and renewable energy generation in Germany—as an obvious sign of
the irreversible transformation of the entire energy sector (Sect. 3). The necessity of
further developing the design of the energy market and the core tasks of the future
are analyzed in Sect. 4.
Based on the capabilities of the power system presented in the previous section,
the most important fields of action for energy companies are highlighted and
business models for the so-called New World are derived and described in Sect. 5.
In Sect. 6 we cover the strategic and organizational requirements needed to
develop and implement new business models. In the conclusion, the main aspects of
this chapter are summarized in the form of propositions, and success factors for
future business models of municipal utilities are stated.
Before we tackle these issues, we start in Sect. 2 with our vision of the energy
sector of the future (Schlemmermeier 2012, p. 42). This view of the future serves as
a framework for the contents of the entire chapter.
2 Our Vision: From Energy Supplier to Capacity Manager
Climate Protection as Undisputed Societal Consensus An energy sector that is

free of CO2 by 2050: The reaction to climate change is currently the major
propellant of change for the energy industry. Germany’s CO2 reduction target of
more than 80 % by 2050 compared to 1990 (BMUB 2014) implies that the use of
fossil fuels needs to be reduced consistently and that the demand for energy must be
covered a lot more efficiently and almost completely from renewable energy
sources.
Decentralized Production and Storage Change Customer Behavior The avail-

ability of new technologies opens the door to decentralized electrical power gener-
ation (which is also known as distributed generation). The costs of decentralized
generation decreases while the costs of conventional large power plants increases.
The lack of constant availability of renewable electricity generated by wind
turbines and solar photovoltaic (PV) systems must be compensated via constantly
available gas-fired production units, preferably via the cogeneration of heat and
electricity (combined heat and power, CHP). Small CHP units will become effi-
ciency leaders in energy usage and emissions and cost leaders in investments and
operations.
Increasing availability and declining cost of technologies for a decentralized
energy supply will increase the desire of consumers to provide not only their own
heating energy but also their own electricity. Given sufficient purchasing power and
financial incentives, this opens up enormous growth potential. Private customers of
the future will take care of their own energy demand: They will produce electricity
and heat via cogeneration, install solar PV systems on their roofs, and have a battery
in the basement or an electric vehicle in the garage. Instead of putting money in a
savings account, they will look for shrewd investments. At the same time,
customers will want to be sure that they can always obtain electricity if their own
production is insufficient to cover their demand (darkness, no wind). If possible,
they will also want to turn energy production into a business. If they produce excess
energy, they will want to be able to sell it.
Industrial clients of the future will also partially cover their own electricity
demands but will continue to rely on the capacities provided by the grid. They
will flexibly adjust the quantity and timing of their demand to the supply of
electrical power (demand-side management).
Further Development of Electricity Market Design When discussing the

backup needed in addition to the fluctuating supply by renewables, storage
technologies are frequently mentioned as the missing link. This is only half the
story. In the future, a complex system of flexible capacities will be needed:
generation facilities, storage units, and demand response resources, as well as
distribution and transmission systems. Competition in innovation and efficiency
will determine what technology to use for any specific purpose. This competition
will be driven by a new market segment: the capacity market. When capacities are
scarce and especially storage facilities are expensive, there will be significant
incentives for business and industrial consumers to accept compensation for load
shifting or peak shaving via demand response measures. The future will no longer
be characterized by a competition of various types of energy or fuels but by a
competition of capacities and system services. This is a major opportunity for
European economies. Instead of importing raw materials, value will be created
domestically (building production facilities, developing the grid, system services,
marketing). This value creation will enhance the economic robustness of Europe.
From Energy Supplier to Capacity Manager: A New Business Model In an

energy world dominated by renewable energy sources, especially wind and sun, the
marginal cost of electricity and heating will tend toward zero. In other words, there
will no longer be any significant variable costs for providing electrical and thermal
power. This enhances the importance of fixed costs and will ultimately lead to the
disappearance of an energy price in favor of a “flat rate,” which is already familiar
from the telecommunications industry.
In the future, two major types of services will be in demand in the energy market:
End users will expect the reliable provision of energy, while their own
decentralized production facilities will be integrated as efficiently as possible into
the overall system. As this process unfolds, customers will partially adjust the
timing of their energy demand to the supply of energy. The independent system
operator will demand flexible capacities, which will synchronize physical supply
and physical demand (load) in the overall system. Energy providers will become
capacity managers and the complexity of their products will increase rapidly. They
will generate contribution margins from revenues for services provided to end users
and for services in the entire system.
What Will Matter? Intelligent metering systems (often called smart meters) are a
key component of the energy transition. They collect data, are an important
communications unit, and provide the interface for the management of supply
(decentralized generation), storage and demand (load management). The manage-
ment of complex processes, growing data volumes, and sophisticated IT systems
will become the decisive factor for future business success.
To increase competition in innovation and efficiency, a framework that supports
market outcomes will be essential. Thus the decoupling of the functions of grid
operation on the one hand and ancillary and balancing services on the other hand is
necessary. Only those services that can be provided efficiently in a natural monop-
oly need to be regulated as a monopoly.
The potential of electric mobility for the energy sector is underestimated. The
state of development in storage technologies is currently the limiting factor. As
soon as that problem is solved, a revolution in the automobile industry will come
up. At that point, thousands of megawatts of flexible storage capacity will be
connected to the grid and constitute a major part of the overall energy system.
The Disappearance of the Dinosaur Dinosaurs are extinct. The personal com-
puter has displaced the mainframe, smartphones have replaced cell phones. The
Internet replaces the national libraries of the world. Social networks are a demo-
cratic movement. The world is being increasingly decentralized, yet
interconnected. This trend will not end with the energy sector. It will force adapta-
tion and displacement on many technologies and companies. Back to the
metaphors: Dinosaurs represent nuclear power plants and the mainframe
corresponds to the coal plant. The Internet, smartphones, and social networks
represent decentralized generation, intelligent metering systems, and virtual
power plants.
Conclusions Visions like these serve as the foundation for the development,
positioning, aims, and strategies for business in the “New World” (Sect. 6.1).
They also make the valuable contribution of engaging all involved parties in the
development process from the very beginning (Sect. 6.3). It is thus essential that all
energy suppliers and utilities develop their own vision about the future of the
energy sector.
3 The Energy Sector Will Become Decentralized

and Renewable
3.1 The Decentralization of Electrical Power Generation
The energy transition in Germany and innovations in technology drive the

decentralized generation of electrical power and vice versa. The centralized
power system, which consists of approximately 450 conventional power plants
with a capacity of approximately 95 GW that feed into the high voltage or extra-
high voltage grid (BNetzA 2014a), is complemented by about 1.44 million
decentralized generation units, which had a capacity of roughly 85 GW at the end
of 2013 (BMWi 2014b, p. 7; BSW-Solar 2014, p. 1; BWE 2013, p. 2).
But this is only an interim description of the paradigm change that is under way
in the electricity market. In a system of coexistence of centralized and decentralized
systems, the decentralized capacities will gradually gain the upper hand. This
follows logically from the German targets of strengthening electricity production
from renewables and exiting nuclear power as well as the growing societal resis-
tance against centralized power generation based on the environmentally damaging
use of fossil fuels that began in the twentieth century.
The grid development plan, which is drafted annually by the four transmission
system operators in Germany in cooperation with the federal states, the public, and
the federal network agency, must specifically also incorporate this rapid increase of
decentralized generation in addition to the availability and operation of large
conventional power plants. The scenario analysis of the grid development plan
therefore provides a solid foundation for the assessment of future trends in
decentralized generation in Germany. Based on the main scenario B for the grid
development plan 2014 (BNetzA 2013, p. 2) it is thus likely that the number of
decentralized capacities will grow up to a total of approximately three million units
in the next 10 years and up to four million within the next 20 years. Already today—
and this will be true even more so in the future—it is absolutely essential to
efficiently integrate millions of decentralized units into the energy market and
electrical power systems.
3.2 Developments and Challenges for Renewable and CHP

Installations
As compensation rates continue to decline, producers of renewable energy are

increasingly challenged to optimize their own consumption and to efficiently
market any excess quantities. Operators of existing and new units that generate
electrical power via cogeneration (CHP) are forced in the current market situation
to equip their installations with a greater degree of flexibility and an electricity-
driven operation to open up urgently needed value-added potential. Especially for
wind turbines or solar power it will no longer be sufficient to simply pick the
location with the highest yield at the lowest available cost. Instead, self-
consumption and competencies in the energy business field and in regulatory
matters will become increasingly relevant in the future. The same is true of the
management of all other decentralized capacities, where a high forecast quality and
great operational flexibility must be achieved (Sect. 4).
3.3 The Markets for Electricity and Heating Will Continue

to Converge
As cogeneration (CHP) will continue to expand and as excess renewable electrical

power will be utilized to generate heating energy via heat pumps and electric
heating systems, the markets for electrical power, gas, and heating will continue
to coalesce even more strongly. Approximately 55 % of energy consumption by the
German end user relates to the provision of space heating, warm water, and process
heat (BMWi 2014c, Table 7). The heating supply in Germany thus holds massive
potential for energy efficiency and cost reduction and opens up a large number of
technological and economic possibilities to develop new business models and
products for energy providers.
In the German household sector alone, approximately 21 million heat-generating
facilities are currently in operation. Of these, approximately 65 % of all oil and
approximately 67 % of all gas heaters, 9.5 million units in total, are older than
17 years as of today. Approximately four million of these units are even older than
24 years (Shell und BDH 2013, p. 27). Despite declining heating requirements as a
consequence of efficiency gains, most of the old heating installations need to be
replaced step by step. Currently, the annual rate of modernization only stands at
about 3 % (BDH 2014), which means that it will take about 33 years before
currently existing systems are completely turned over once. In sum, there is an
enormous modernization backlog in the heating sector, which opens up a massive
market potential for the installation of modern condensing boilers (especially
gas-fired), solar thermal energy, cogeneration units, biomass boilers, heat pumps,
and electric heating systems.
The future of the energy sector is clearly mapped out. Numerous energy
service companies, newcomers, start-ups, and industry outsiders are already
actively and speedily capturing future business potential with innovative
business models and sufficient capital. It remains to be seen what role the
established energy suppliers—and especially the municipal utilities—will
play in this “New World” and whether their traditionally close relations
with customers and local craft businesses can be used as trump cards while
simultaneously mastering the challenges of the “Old World”.
4 Advancing the Electricity Market Design and Core Tasks

for the Future
4.1 Energy System Capabilities
To consistently, reliably, and efficiently cover end users’ energy demands in the
future, the integration of the demand side with the fluctuating supply of renewable
energy will be needed since this segment is increasingly dominating the energy
sector. Increasing the flexibility of supply and demand and their synchronization
will be the key tasks in the electricity market of the future. The growing need for
flexibility must be guaranteed through a technology mix of flexible generation,
electric storage, and demand response resources and with the help of correspond-
ingly liquid wholesale and control energy markets. Figure 1 demonstrates these
complex relationships with reference to the most important capabilities of the
energy system.
Fluctuating Supply Transmission and Distribution Grids Inflexible

by Renewables Consumers
Smart Grid 5
Flexible
Producers 2
Controllable
Loads
3
Supply 1 Synchronization 6 7 Demand
Storage 4
Fig. 1 Synchronizing supply and demand of electricity as main future challenge

The most important capabilities of the energy system of the future (also called
“capacities”) are:
1. Fluctuating supply by renewables (wind turbines, solar PV);

2. Flexible producers (available and controllable generation);
3. Controllable loads (demand response resources);
4. Electric storage (stationary batteries, electric vehicles);
5. Smart grid (transmission and distribution);
6. Synchronization of supply and demand (capacity management/virtual
power plants);
7. Inflexible consumers (mainly energy efficiency measures).
Based on these capacities of the power system, numerous market and business
opportunities for different customer segments and stages along the value chain exist
that will be considered in greater detail in Sect. 5. But these market and business
opportunities cannot and should not be captured without adequate consideration of
the aims of the current energy policy, namely, the secure, cost-efficient, and
environmentally friendly energy supply. For that reason it is mandatory to continu-
ously develop the electricity market design along these lines.
4.2 Continuous Development of the Electricity Market Design
4.2.1 Current State of Conventional Power Plants

As a consequence of the energy transition in Germany and the decentralization of
the power sector, the relative importance of the various technologies available for
the generation of electrical power is changing. Driven by the massive buildup of
renewable generation, the intensity of competition in the wholesale power market
has increased enormously in recent years, including predatory pricing based on
marginal cost. The existing market model thus not only puts economic pressure on
existing power plants1 but also prevents necessary investments in the moderniza-
tion of power plants, which are needed to maintain the reliability of supply and to
achieve climate protection targets. It is therefore the prevailing opinion among
politicians and utilities in Germany that the current situation with conventional
power plants calls for a reform of the electricity market. Still open, however, are the
concrete contours of such a market reform [for a more detailed perspective see
Schlemmermeier (2014)].
1
By September 2014, the Federal Network Agency had already received requests for the tempo-
rary or terminal closure of power plants totaling approximately 13 GW (BNetzA 2014b).
4.2.2 Market and Regulatory Components for the Future
Fundamentally, future electricity market design should contain the following

market and regulatory components:
1. Capacity mechanism to obtain renewable electrical power,

2. Capacity mechanism to assure reliability of supply,
3. Energy-only market to optimize capacity utilization,
4. Market for control energy and ancillary services.
The existing high reliability of supply in Germany must be assured via a capacity
mechanism that offers a financial incentive for providing sufficient electric
capacities to meet demand. This is the only way to generate the income streams
required to keep existing power plants on the market and to encourage investment
in new facilities. To keep costs for the consumers as low as possible, a capacity
market needs to foster competition in innovation and efficiency and limit windfall
profits for the market participants. At the same time, the energy-only market loses
nothing of its importance for the energy sector since it provides the necessary
incentives for efficiency and the corresponding utilization of those capacities in the
energy system that have the lowest marginal costs.
The generation of electricity from renewables constitutes a separate market
segment since renewable energies and fossil-based power plants produce different
products. For that reason, they are not complete substitutes but, rather,
complements. Hence, an autonomous capacity mechanism for the purchase of
renewable electrical power must be developed that allows for price competition
on the basis of administered quantities. This capacity mechanism must continue to
provide incentives for innovation in the various technologies, while the roll-out
needs to be oriented on efficiency criteria for the entire system. And finally, all
ancillary and balancing services—and not only the primary control, secondary
control, and minute reserve—should be given a market price in order to adequately
compensate the participants for this important contribution to guaranteeing the
reliability of supply.
A fundamental prerequisite to assure the reliability of supply and the transfor-
mation of the energy sector is an adequate power grid. Future grid development
must be structured as a process of weighing up the efficiency of installing capacities
close to the load versus building new power lines over long distances. Thus, owing
to the high impact on costs and the environment, the development of transmission
and distribution grids needs to be restrict to what is absolute necessary.
4.2.3 State of Debate About the Future Design of the Electricity

Market
Concrete suggestions concerning future market design and the improved integration
of the different market segments for electricity from renewable and fossil energy
sources, as well as for the energy (energy-only market), power (capacity market),
and ancillary and balancing services (control energy market) have been around for a
number of years. As an example, in 2012 the concept of the focused capacity market
was proposed by Öko-Institut, Raue LLP, and LBD-Beratungsgesellschaft (Öko-
Institut et al. 2012). The pros and cons of this and of additional proposals
concerning different capacity mechanisms have been discussed intensely among
experts and politicians in Germany. The most discussed models are briefly
presented in the following tables.
4.2.4 Description of Five Main Models for the Design of the Future
Power Market with Capacity Mechanisms in Germany
In the following tables five main models for the design of the future power market
with capacity mechanisms in Germany are briefly described (Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, and
5). As a consequence of the systematic supply shortage in connection with the high
price volatility in the energy-only market, neither the grid reserve nor the strategic
Table 1 Grid reserve

Brief description The aim of the grid reserve is to guarantee the secure operation of the
power grid. It was introduced in Germany in reaction to transmission
bottlenecks in the north–south direction. Components include a regulation
on reserve power plants (Reservekraftwerksverordnung, ResKV) and a
regulation on interruptible loads (Verordnung zu abschaltbaren Lasten,
AbLaV).
The grid reserve factually works like a strategic reserve but lacks a
transparent pricing mechanism. It can only be a transitory instrument,
which supports the discussion about fundamental market reform without
jeopardizing the reliability of supply.
Provision of Systemically relevant installations.
power “Insurance function” that is external to the electricity market.
Compensation Reimbursement of cost
payment
Table 2 Strategic reserve (BMUB 2013; Consentec 2012)

Brief description The further development of the grid reserve results in the strategic reserve,
which is utilized in the case of a supply scarcity, in other words, if demand
cannot be satisfied by the energy-only market.
The aim is to maintain scarcity and, thus, a higher level of electricity prices
and margins. This is expected to assure profitable investments and the
economic operation of power plants.
The amount of strategic reserve must be fixed administratively. The
strategic reserve may not be used in the wholesale markets. In essence, a
kind of insurance is provided with this approach.
Provision of Only power plants. The demand for capacity is set by the administration.
power “Insurance function” that is external to the electricity market.
Compensation Capacity charge for maintaining capacity. Payment at highest spot market
payment price (e.g., 3000 Euro/MWh).
Table 3 Comprehensive, centralized capacity market (EWI 2012)

Brief description The concept of the comprehensive capacity market is based on the demand
for a capacity that is set by the administration. It is acquired via an auction.
The power plants are used in the energy-only market and the control
energy markets.
Provision of The entire market consisting of power plants, controllable loads, and
Power storage. The amount of capacity is determined administratively.
Compensation Fixed capacity charge to provide output over amortization period of
Payment capacity (e.g., 15 years).
Table 4 Focused, centralized capacity market (Öko-Institut et al. 2012)

Brief description The concept of the focused capacity market is also based on an
administratively determined amount of capacity, which is obtained via an
auction.
The main difference with the comprehensive capacity market lies in the
redistribution effect between consumers and companies as well as among
companies. Also included is the option to take into consideration regional
scarcity.
The focused capacity market aims at market segmentation and the
corresponding reduction of costs for the consumer by reducing windfall
profits of the providers of electrical power.
Provision of Only installations that are at risk of being shut down or new facilities
power (highly flexible and environmentally friendly generation, controllable
loads, storage—output determined administratively).
Compensation Fixed capacity charge to provide output over amortization period of
payment capacity (e.g., 15 years for new facilities, 5 years for existing plants).
Table 5 Comprehensive, decentralized capacity market (BDEW 2014; Enervis 2014)

Brief description This is one of the various models that focus on demand. In those models,
the consumer independently determines the degree of supply reliability
that he expects and is willing to obtain from his supplier.
Here the degree of reliability of supply is not set administratively but
instead determined by the demand for certificates of supply reliability.
Provision of Overall market consisting of power plants, controllable loads, and storage.
power Demand determines the range of services offered.
Compensation Capacity charge to provide service over the contract term with the
payment customer (e.g., 2 years).
Energy charge is equal to market price.
reserve is suitable for removing the current uncertainty and investment constraints
of market participants. Because of the very short-term price signals and the high
volatility of the capacity charge, the decentralized capacity market is similarly
unable to sufficiently incentivize investments. Still, the decentralized capacity
market—just like the focused and comprehensive capacity market—maintains a
competitive intensity in the wholesale markets. But only the focused and compre-
hensive capacity markets are truly capable of providing investment incentives. The
different models not only have different repercussions for the business fields of the
power plant operators and utilities but also for the degree of reliability of supply and
the cost of electricity to consumers. From the various perspectives of politics,
corporations, business fields, and consumers, it therefore follows that different
models will be preferred. When designing electricity market reforms, politicians
must therefore assess the different models on the basis of their effects on the
reliability of supply, climate protection, intensity of competition in the energy
market, and distribution of costs between the energy industry and consumers.
As for the Renewable Energy Act 3.0, a possible concept was proposed, for
example, in a study of the Öko-Institut, commissioned by Agora Energiewende in
2014. In summary, this concept suggests an even greater integration of renewable
energy plants compared to the current situation, which also implies that these
installations need to accept a greater degree of electricity price risk. At the same
time, they should be allowed to collect capacity premiums to refinance their
investments if they are structured in a way that supports the overall system (Öko-
Institut 2014, p. 1). In some sense, this model advances and puts into concrete terms
the concept of the focused capacity market for renewable energy.
4.3 Capacity Management as One of the Key Business Models

of the Future
Independent of the future electricity market design, the demand for flexibility will
be one of the main value drivers for both producers and consumers of electrical
power. The operators of available generation units, demand response resources, and
storage facilities have numerous marketing options, which poses different
challenges concerning technical parameters and the operation of the flexible
capacities as well as processes for optimization (in front of and behind the meter)
and for marketing. The intelligent management of the provision of power from
different capacities as well as the permanent optimization of energy sales and
purchases in the various markets with the aim of creating the highest value or the
lowest cost will be the task of capacity managers (Fig. 2).
The foundations for the business model of the capacity manager are as follows:
– Decentralized metering and control systems to capture data and to trigger

commands at the metering point in real time;
– Automated IT systems that are suitable for a mass market and communicate with
the facilities and other market participants;
Conven-
Inflexible
tional Power
Consumers
Plants
Cogeneration
Renewables
Units, CHP
Electric Controllable
Storage Loads
Fig. 2 Principle of value optimization of capacities in different market segments by capacity

manager
– Complex, high-performance IT systems to evaluate and analyze various kinds of

forecasts and metering data, to structure portfolios, and to generate switch and
control commands.
Mastering highly complex processes, massive amounts of data, and powerful IT

systems will thus be a decisive success factor for capacity managers. We call the
combination of these functionalities the factory of the capacity manager (Fig. 3). It
is not mandatory that capacity managers own all capacities or that all elements of
his so-called factory are furnished by them. Depending on regulatory
developments, certain parts of the factory could very well be under the control of
Decentralized Metering and Control Systems IT-Systems of Metering

Point Operator/-Service
Provider
Customer
1 7 6 2
Metering Point
1 7 6 2 (Electricity, Gas)
(Real Time)
CHP
Lokal Metering and Communication
Control Infrastructure
IT-Systems of the Capacity Manager
Energy Data Portfolio

Management Management
Management, Control an Optimization

(Central Control System)
Fig. 3 Outline of the “factory of the capacity manager”
the metering point operator or the metering service provider. The metering systems
and relevant processes (at present, specifically settlement and customer change
processes, in the future possibly also switching/controlling) are subject to regula-
tion. This poses additional challenges with regard to the competencies of the
capacity manager.
The business model of the capacity manager will develop in several stages and
different versions in the market. In its first development stage it has already been
observable for a number of years in the German energy market: for example, at
companies that directly market renewable electricity in line with the Renewable
Energy Act of 20142 and at companies that bundle renewables, small CHP units,
2
According to Sect. 5.9 of the Renewable Energy Act of 2014, direct marketing refers to the selling
of electrical power from renewable energy or from mine gas to third parties, except where the
electrical power is used in direct proximity to the installations and not passed through the grid.
emergency power generators, and controllable loads in so-called virtual power

plants and sell it on the wholesale and control energy markets.
In addition to the business model of the capacity manager, numerous other
business models, including various products and services, exist that can advance
the energy transition. We summarize these opportunities under the term energy
transition business opportunities and present an overview in the following section.
5 Business Models for Energy Suppliers and Utilities

in the “New World”
5.1 Structuring and Description of Future Business Models
5.1.1 Development of a Vision for the Future of the Energy Market

Energy suppliers in general and municipal utilities in particular need to answer a
number of questions: Which business opportunities—today and in the next
5 years—will present enough potential for the so-called New World? What are
their capabilities in these business opportunities? And which of these business
opportunities do they want to tackle and which abandon? Among other things,
this requires a vision for the future that describes expectations about the develop-
ment of the energy market and its political, regulatory, and social framework
conditions. In addition, it will be important to structure the multitude of possible
business opportunities and to provide a qualitative and quantitative description.
5.1.2 Structuring and Description of Future Business Models

Business opportunities can be described with regard to their technological attributes
(e.g., available and renewable power generation, controllable loads or demand
response resources, battery storage and electric mobility) or from a customer
perspective (such as energy efficiency, self-consumption, reduction of energy
costs, comfort, and return on investment).
In our opinion, future business models will be best structured along the
capabilities of the power system, which are described in Sect. 4.1. Using this
structure, Figure 4 provides a brief overview of the numerous business
opportunities presented by the energy transition for selected customer segments.
The depth and complexity of the analysis of potential business opportunities can
be reduced significantly by focusing on specific customer segments (for example,
only households and commercial consumers in the home market of the municipal
utility) and capabilities (for example, no offshore wind energy). Following the
Capabilities Private Commercial Key

consumers consumers accounts
Photovoltaics
Renewable energy
(fluctuating supply)
Solar thermal energy Wind energy
Condensing boilers
Decentralized,
Heat pumps
flexible generation
CHP units
Controllable loads
Demand side management (load shifting etc.)
and consumers
Stationary battery storage

Storage and electric
vehicles
Electric vehicles and loading infrastructure
Capacity management Virtual power plants
Smart home Energy management
Inflexible consumers/ Modernization of heating and cooling systems,

energy efficiency energy efficiency measures
Analysis and advisory services
Fig. 4 Overview of multitude of energy transition business opportunities (excluding grid

operation)
structure presented in Fig. 4, energy transition business opportunities are defined in

three dimensions and therefore require detailed and comprehensive planning
(Fig. 5):
– Capabilities in the energy system that can be provided via various technologies,
– Customer and market segments where value added can be created,
– Stages in the value chain to implement the business model or marketing the
products and services.
Capabilities
1. Fluctuating supply
by renewables
2. Flexible producers
3. Controllable loads
4. Electric storage
5. Grid operations
6. Capacity management
7. Energy efficiency, Customers,

Inflexible consumers Markets
Households, Industry, Pro- Whole- Ancillary

commercial multi-sites sumers salers services
Analysis, advisory services, project development, sales
Financing, grant and subsidy management
Construction and installation
O&M, capacity management
Metering, settlement, commercial management
Value Creation
Fig. 5 Description of business opportunities for energy transition in three dimensions
5.1.3 Value Chain of Energy Transition Business Opportunities

Figure 6 displays the value chain for the energy transition business opportunities
and outlines the needed competencies. Assuming the necessary clarity concerning
the future development of markets and customer demands, energy companies need
to identify those stages in the value chain where they want to be active as well as the
stages where they decide or are forced to rely on the competencies of partners and
market services.
• Analysis and advisory services

• Project identification and development
• Business planning
• Regulatory management
Analysis, Advisory • Permits
Services, Project • Public relations
Development, Sales • Contract development
1
• Acquisition of financial funds
• Management of grants and subsidies
• Contract development with banks and
partners
Financing, Grant • Pre-financing
and Subsidy • Capital service
Management
2 • Planning, logistics and procurement

• Construction of plants, infrastructure
and grid connection
• Installation of the control system for
plants, operations and optimization, as
Construction and well as system integration of capacities
Installation • Commissioning
3 • Forecasting of production, feed-in

and demand
• Management of plants and operations
• Capacity management, value-oriented
O&M, marketing of capacities
Capacity • Technical and commercial
Management management, O&M, repairs
4
• Metering point operation and
metering services
• Market communication
Metering, • Settlement
Settlement, • Business Services
Business Services
Fig. 6 Description of value chain for energy transition business opportunities
5.1.4 Criteria for Assessing and Selecting the most Promising

Business Opportunities
The assessment and selection of the most promising business opportunities from the
perspective of an energy supplier must be based on a set of predefined criteria.
Potential business models should target a robust and varied business area, allow the
use of economies of scale and synergies, and at the same time facilitate a speedy
and flexible adjustment to changing framework conditions.
Useful criteria to prioritize business opportunities therefore include the
following:
– Customer needs and market potential for possible business models, both local
and supraregional;
– Potential value contribution and return or contribution margins;
– Sustainability and susceptibility to regulatory change;
– Feasibility concerning timing, competencies, processes, and organization;
– Company’s share in value chain and significance for the company.
Once the possible energy transition business opportunities have been assessed
and evaluated and the market and business potential analyzed, energy companies
must be in a position to answer the following questions concerning their operations:
– What are the future markets and business potentials with reference to the
respective customer segments?
– Which business models are of interest and how can their value contribution be
measured?
– How competitive are the new technologies and costs?
– How and by when can a new business model, product, or service be introduced to
the market? What are the competencies needed at the company level?
The answers to these questions will then be used to develop the strategy and
organize the implementation of the business models for the future (Sect. 6).
5.2 Selected Examples of Business Models
In this section we describe possible models for two business opportunities that
follow from the energy transition. In Germany they were already available on the
market in 2013/2014 and can be profitable in the current regulatory environment.
5.2.1 Self-Consumption of Solar Energy for Households

Depending on the specific conditions, a PV system with the right dimensions can
cover more than 30 % of the electricity demand of a typical family living in a
single-family home in Central Europe. If battery storage, which is becoming more
reliable and less expensive every year, is employed, this consumption share can be
increased to more than 70 %. Self-consumption of affordable solar energy is thus
very attractive for most homeowners, and many have already taken action. None-
theless, there is still huge market potential among private and commercial
customers who have remained passive up to this point and can be motivated by
lucrative offers. Customers usually have the choice between ownership of the solar
power system by financing the investment independently and a full-service
Grid feed-in
Compensation for the Grid operator
Customer PV surplus of electricity on
the basis of the
applicable energy law
Self-consumption
Cutting down the electricity Energy supplier
bill by covering between
70% (with battery storage) Residual electricity
and 30% (without battery) of
the demand
demand
Purchase of electricity
from the energy supplier
Financing to cover the residual
Financing of the investment demand
Fig. 7 Principle of self-consumption of solar energy (with or without battery storage)
offering, which involves the rental of a rooftop by the energy company. Figure 7
describes the self-consumption of solar energy in principle. In the German energy
sector, important pioneers in this field are, among others, the companies
greenergetic GmbH, rhenag Rheinische Energie AG, and STAWAG AG [for a
comprehensive overview see Schorsch (2014), p. 10]. Globally there are many
more important players in the steadily growing market for solar PVs. For example,
there is a huge market for solar power in the USA, with several companies
providing solar solutions for homeowners and businesses.
Self-consumption via decentralized power systems are primarily a topic for
single-family and two-family homes. Possible models for multi-family homes,
where the tenants consume the electricity produced on site either by the real estate
owner or the energy supplier (keyword »tenant electricity«) are considerably more
challenging to implement in the current regulatory environment. In Germany, first
projects are already tested in the market and increasingly more energy suppliers and
housing companies are considering »tenant electricity« as a viable business oppor-
tunity. The German-based LichtBlick SE with PV systems and the municipal utility
Augsburg Energie GmbH with mini CHP units are two pioneers that have started to
accumulate experience in this field (Focht 2014, p. 19).
5.2.2 Model for “Tenant Electricity” from a Mini CHP Unit

A suitable business model to supply a multifamily home with electricity and heat
from a mini CHP unit can be structured as follows:
– The energy supplier is the owner and operator of the mini CHP unit in a
multifamily home.
– The produced heating energy is sold to the real estate owner or the housing
company, which charges the tenants for the delivery of heating energy as an
ancillary cost in the usual way.
Heating energy Housing company

supply contract
Rental contract
Energy supplier Billing of heating
energy delivery via
ancillary costs
Electricity supply
contract Tenant
Demand is met by
electricity generated
on site and by
Grid feed-in
electricity delivered
Payments in
from the grid Grid
line with the
operator
ownership applicable
Mini CHP unit energy law
Fig. 8 Principle of a business model for self-consumption of multifamily home based on a mini
CHP unit
– The energy supplier offers a special tariff for “tenant electricity” to the tenants,
which guarantees the delivery of electricity generated on site (as much as
possible) and electricity from the grid (as little as possible) at a cheaper rate
than the local standard tariff.
– The grid operator compensates the energy supplier for the electricity produced
by the CHP unit and for the grid feed-in of the excess energy that is not used on
site according to the applicable law.
Against the backdrop of increasing requirements on the energy efficiency of

existing and new buildings, a growing number of housing companies are becoming
interested in efficient energy supplies provided by mini CHP units. Offering
electricity from a mini CHP unit to private or commercial tenants of a building
can significantly increase the profitability of the investment. Figure 8 shows an
example of a business model in which electricity and heating energy are provided
for a multifamily home from a mini CHP unit in a simplified and schematic fashion.
5.2.3 Factors That Influence the Economic Efficiency of Energy

Transition Business Models
The ultimate economic efficiency of business models such as the one presented
earlier will always depend on the current regulatory framework and market envi-
ronment as well as the specific situation of the company implementing the concrete
model. In Germany, the Renewable Energy Act and the Combined Heat and Power
Relevant aspects for developing energy transition business

opportunities
Customer segments, target area, market

Market
potential
Reducing energy costs, ecology, profitability,

Customer needs
autarky, reliability of supply
Opportunities and requirements from energy

Regulation
laws and regulation
Financing, grants and subsidies, profitability and

Financing
amortization
Sale, lease, contracting, self-consumption,

Business models
tenant electricity, energy management…
Manufacturer, quality, technological innovation,

Technology
prices, cost
Value creation Delivery, installation, operation, management,

(Make or buy) capacity management, maintenance, service
Profitability Cost and revenue of the utility
Fig. 9 Relevant aspects for developing business opportunities for energy transition
Generation Act heavily influence the economic efficiency of business models

involving solar PV and CHP units the most. At the same time, it is absolutely
essential for any economic assessment to know whether business models that are
mainly based on the self-consumption of electricity by the end user are offered in
the home market (potential reduction of electricity sales to existing customers) or
outside the home market (potentially new customers). And finally, the allocation of
the roles of owner, operator, and consumer between energy supplier, owners of the
real estate, and end users is extremely relevant for the viability and ultimate success
of these business models. Figure 9 summarizes graphically most of the aspects that
are relevant to energy companies when developing business plans based on the
energy transition.
5.2.4 Challenges for Municipal Utilities

Even though numerous obstacles stand in the way, municipal utilities must deal
with models of self-consumption when looking at energy transition business
opportunities. Providing products and services for self-consumption from solar
PV systems is a good starting point for market entry since it is relatively simple.
Numerous municipal utilities have already included similar models in their strategy
development for the field of decentralized generation. But many issues remain,
especially concerning the regulatory framework. Additionally, municipal utilities
are partially cannibalizing their home market while at the same time securing their
existing electricity delivery contracts. Simply ignoring the trend toward increasing
self-consumption is certainly not an option. If municipal utilities do not offer any
products for self-consumption, competitors or customers will. Similarly, the possi-

ble cannibalization effect is offset by numerous advantages, such as long-term
customer retention via service and maintenance of assets, an increase in gas sales,
or a growing market for energy management or business services. Marketing and
operations for energy-related products and services of the “New World” that are of
high quality and have a significant impact on the profit of a company will remain
very challenging (Schlemmermeier 2013, S.32).
5.3 Conclusions
The market and for self-consumption and similar products and services in the “New
World” is still at an early stage. Technologies continue to develop and prices on
installations will continue to drop. The producers of CHP facilities are pushing into
the market for smaller units. The manufacturers and installers of PV systems are
offering increasingly attractive solutions for self-consumption—with and without
battery storage—to their customers. Even the manufacturers of stationary batteries
are beginning to offer not only hardware but also energy-related services and
software solutions to their customers for maximizing the benefits of their
installations. This increases the requirement to not only optimize these assets
with regard to the needs of customers and providers but also to integrate them
efficiently into power systems and energy markets. This market and systems
integration, which combines numerous technologies with the creation of value is
the core aspect of capacity management (Sect. 4.3). As the number of these types of
business models in the market increases, customer interest will grow, and vice
versa.
6 Strategy Development and Organization for Future

Business Models
6.1 Development of Positioning, Aims, and Strategies
A major foundation for developing business models for the “New World” is the
description of positioning, aims, and strategies for the new business field. This
requires, among other things, making decisions about the following issues:
– Market positioning, intended market share; and revenue;

– Elements of the product and service portfolio so as to create (added) value for
customers as well as energy companies;
– Development of specific competencies at energy companies and cooperation
with service providers and partners;
– Sales organization and processes for the distribution of products and services for
the energy transition.
Aims and strategies must be developed consistently on the basis of the individual
long-term vision of the specific energy company. Also, aims and strategies must be
assessed regularly with regard to current market developments and regulatory
initiatives and adjusted if necessary.
6.2 Needs of Municipal Utilities in Germany in Current Market

Environment
In the current, highly regulated energy sector of Central Europe, market reforms are
an important prerequisite for the creation of business opportunities that promise
profitable growth and significant sales volume. The existing uncertainty about the
future regulatory framework makes it harder to develop energy transition business
opportunities. Against this backdrop it seems advisable, especially for municipal
utilities in Germany, to follow a dual strategy when developing business models for
the “New World.” On the one hand, those energy transition business opportunities
that are profitable in the current market and regulatory environment need to be
integrated into the existing product portfolio. On the other hand, it is necessary
already to develop business that can become profitable only in the reformed market
and regulatory environment of the coming years.
The specific requirements of the municipal utilities also play an important role in
developing a strategy and business model. These include the following:
– Generating profitable growth with new business opportunities to compensate for

lost earnings in other segments;
– Maintenance of the customer portfolio (margins, market shares) by offering new
services, even as the self-consumption of customers grows;
– Participation in the energy transition in order to strengthen the positioning of the
company and to satisfy the demands of the municipal owners or shareholders;
– Efficiency (cost, resources, knowledge) and success in developing new and
profitable business opportunities;
– Maintaining independence, which also relates to external perceptions of the
company.
Market developments, changes in the regulatory framework, and growing

expectations of owners require substantial modifications of the business models
of Germany’s municipal utilities. A specific challenge is the enormous growth in
the complexity of the business and the correspondingly higher demand on corporate
resources. Municipal utilities thus face the strategic challenge of deciding which
services they want to provide independently and which services they want to offer
in cooperation with other municipal utilities, strategic partners, or independent
service providers.
6.3 New Business Models Require New Structures and Processes
Growing complexity, intense competition, and enormous price-reduction pressures,

coupled with increasing digitization, lead to the fact that more and more highly
specialized companies are entering the value chain of energy-related products and
services. Therefore, margins at the various stages of the value chain will remain
under pressure. Technological progress and frequent changes in the regulatory
framework conditions of the energy market meanwhile imply that the product
lifetime of most business opportunities is becoming ever shorter. Thus utilities
tend to shy away from capital-intensive business models owing to the high risk
associated with the amortization of relevant expenditures.
Since the “New World” of the energy sector differs in numerous ways from the
“Old World,” the development of new business models will frequently require fresh
thinking across the entire company. This holds for the corporate culture and the
organizational structure as well as for the motivation, willingness to innovate,
knowledge, and self-conception of employees. Especially with regard to the fre-
quently used argument of the “Old World” that new business models would
jeopardize existing business areas of many energy companies (keyword: models
of self-consumption, Sect. 5.2), the idea of the “New World” as a new and
independent organizational unit in the corporate structure is a noteworthy one.
This makes sense since the two worlds will continue to coexist in the energy
industry for many years, until finally the “New World” will completely overshadow
the “Old.”
Currently in Germany, many municipal utilities still fail to include in their
portfolios significant amounts of products that allow profitable growth in the age
of energy transition. The development of such energy transition business
opportunities and the implementation of new operational processes should therefore
be at the forefront of strategic corporate development (Schorsch und
Schlemmermeier 2014, S.21).
6.4 Process Model for the Development, Production,

and Marketing of Energy-Related Products and Services
Compared to the “Old World” of retailing energy, the “New World” of energy
transition business opportunities will require a new process and management
model, which in our opinion consists of three pillars (Fig. 10):
1. Product development: business and product development as well as product

management;
2. Production and operations: production and creation of consumer solutions;
3. Sales: distribution of consumer solutions.
In what follows, we will discuss these three pillars of the process model in more
detail.
Process organization for energy transition business opportunities

Product developm. Production/Operations Sales
Commodities
Market communications
„Old World“ Customer communications
„New World“ Capacity management
IT-services, application services
Advising, analysis, planning
Hardware services
Hardware provision
Financing
Business services
Fig. 10 The three-pillar-process model for implementation of business opportunities for energy
transition
1. Product Development The core task of the development unit is product man-
agement, which includes responsibility for products, prices, communications, and
sales. If the right products are the key to success (profitable growth), product
development must become the nucleus of this process model. The development
unit should thus take responsibility for the following activities:
– Product range and quality,

– Design of customer contacts in the production processes,
– Efficiency and cost considerations for the provision of services.
Owing to the multitude and complexity of future business opportunities, product

development will increasingly become an interdisciplinary task requiring interdis-
ciplinary teams. At a minimum, employees in the field of product development
must demonstrate competencies and qualifications in the following areas:
– Understanding markets and regulations;

– Understanding customer needs and client communications;
– Development of technical solutions;
– Modeling of quantities, costs, and prices;
– Pricing and contract development, risk analysis, and management, which
includes developing the requirements for operational processes and sales
performance.
2. Production and Operations The products for the “New World” are produced in
the operating unit based on the guidelines provided by the development team. The
employees in the operating unit are thus responsible for the quality and cost of the
production process as well as the incorporation of suppliers of materials and third-
party services. The major challenge is to arrive at the correct decisions, jointly with
the product development team, concerning in-sourcing and outsourcing of the
various tasks and services against the background of aims and strategies, available
competencies at the company, and economic requirements. At the same time it is
absolutely crucial, especially in the case of technically complex energy transition
business opportunities, to involve craftsmen, that is, installers of solar power and
CHP systems, from the outset in the development and value creation process.
3. Sales Employees in the sales unit are responsible for product placement and
distribution. The sales force is best structured along customer segments and geo-
graphical regions and needs to be supported by product specialists. The complexity
of many products in the “New World” is so high that no all employees can be
expected to represent all products up to the point of contract closing. However, it is
precisely this complexity that makes it important for a majority of (potential)
customers to have to deal with only one corporate representative who can take
care of all their needs and coordinate all activities in the background.
The reality of energy retailing in the “Old World” demonstrates that in Germany
new customers will not switch to another delivery contract on their own, despite
significant pricing differences of more than 100 Euro per annum. Instead they need
to be convinced via direct marketing or sales partnerships. This reality is even more
relevant for the sale of difficult-to-explain products of the “New World.” Nonethe-
less, strong competitive pressures and the need to lower costs, combined with a
trend toward digitization, will mean that, going forward, the highest possible share
of sales activities for products and services of the “New World” needs to be
organized online.
6.5 Conclusions
To tackle the big challenges of the energy transition, energy companies must have a
division that takes responsibility for the development, management, and economic
results of new business activities and products. This division can be understood as a
functional unit of the company that in the classical sense of marketing is responsible
for developing and managing product and pricing policies as well as communica-
tion and selling activities. The abilities to innovate and “understanding customers”
are the key factors that enable profitable growth in the days of the energy transition.
Whether the products of the “New World” can indeed be sold and how this selling
process can be implemented are subject to constant learning. Both issues need to be
clarified before the newly developed structures can be further expanded in a
meaningful way.
7 Summary: Main Points Concerning the Future of Energy

Companies
Energy Transition and Customer Needs Change the Business of Energy

Companies The business of energy supply will change in fundamental ways.
The drivers of change are the energy transition and customer needs. Customers
decide what they want and what offerings are suitable for them. The customers of
the future will want to be autonomous and self-sufficient and to participate in the
energy transition. This is true for homeowners in the countryside as well as for
tenants in urban areas. They all should be involved and want to be involved. In
cities, housing companies will hold a key position regarding the energy transition.
Traditional “Old World” Market Shrinks Owing to Increasing

Decentralization In the “Old World,” energy suppliers buy and sell electricity
and gas. The sales margins that can currently be achieved exceed the amount that
can be justified on the basis of value creation. The traditional market for these
products will shrink owing to increasing decentralization.
“Old World”: Simplicity, Efficiency, Profitability What counts in the traditional

business of energy retailers are maximizing margins and handling the commercial
processes of the energy business with the end user completely online. Since
electricity and gas discounters will not be able to recuperate their costs of customer
acquisition and negative margins via higher prices, they will leave the market. Price
differences and, thus, incentives to change the energy supplier will shrink.
Future Business Will Revolve Around the Decentralized Production of Energy

by End Users For energy companies, the business model of the future will revolve
primarily around the decentralized production of energy by private and commercial
end users. They will cover part of their energy demand through self-consumption
from solar power or CHP units, while energy companies will sell the excess
electricity that is not used on site, deliver the energy for the remaining demand,
and guarantee the security of supply, and with the aim of realizing the best possible
economic result for the customer.
Required Tasks and Services of Energy Companies for the “New World”:
Business Opportunities For the business of the future, energy companies must be
in a position to sell, install, operate, and maintain the technical systems of the end
user—solar PV systems, mini CHP units, stationary battery system,s and various
energy efficiency measures—and to integrate them into customer and market
systems. This leads to additional tasks for the sales teams such as the sale of a
product that is significantly more advanced and technically complex than the
current product range, the management of additional market and regulatory risks,
and the support of customers who actually demand a service from the utility,
namely, that their installations at home are operating profitably.
Already Today, the Energy Transition Requires a Dual Strategy In the “Old
World,” energy retailers need to radically simplify their products, communications,
customer management, processes, and IT in order to increase efficiency. Product
management, which is tasked with managing margins and market shares, must
become quantitative in nature. The main idea is to be simple, operate at low cost,
and keep generating high margins as long as possible.
For the “New World” investments in the learning curve are the top priority.
The aim is to establish the so-called factory of the future—alone or jointly with
partners—and to develop products that allow for a profitable business based on
decentralization and renewable energy. The current challenge for energy suppliers
and municipal utilities is to free up the necessary resources and development
competencies in order to establish the business of the “New World.” This also
includes the need to turn potential competitors into partners.
The Energy Transition Business Field Requires a Separate

Organizational Unit Compared to the “Old World” of energy supply, the “New
World” of energy transition business opportunities requires a new process and
management model that rests on the three pillars of development, operations, and
sales. Crucial in this regard will be the allocation of responsibility for the financial
results to the development area and the proximity to the customer of the sales force.
The Energy Transition as a Process of Innovation Management The energy

transition is a process of innovation management in an uncertain environment
concerning climate and energy policies. Five years ago, nobody foresaw what
today’s energy market would look like, and today, nobody knows what the energy
market will look like in 5 years. Regulation, technological innovation, and cus-
tomer needs will witness dynamic change. Fundamental trends are becoming
evident, though their exact timing and detailed shape remain uncertain. This leads
to the following requirements for the sales and distribution processes: focus,
flexibility, adaptation, assessment, and readjustment as needed.
References
BDEW Bundesverband der Energie- und Wasserwirtschaft e.V. (2014). Positionspapier—
Ausgestaltung eines dezentralen Leistungsmarkts. Accessed Nov 12, 2014, from
https://www.bdew.de/internet.nsf/id/3A90CD61C49A1952C1257D0E003A0C54/$file/BDEW-
Positionspapier_Ausgestaltung%20eines%20dezentralen%20Leistungsmarkts_300614_oA.pdf
BDH Bundesindustrieverband Deutschland Haus-, Energie- und Umwelttechnik e.V. (2014).
Energierevolution scheitert ohne W€ arme- und Klimamarkt. Accessed Oct 23, 2014, from
http://www.bdh-koeln.de/uploads/media/PM_28012014_DWK_Keine_Energierevolution_
ohne_Waerme-_und_Klimamarkt.pdf
BMUB Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit. (2013). Konzept
f€
ur die Umsetzung einer Strategischen Reserve in Deutschland—Ergebnisbericht des
Fachdialogs »Strategische Reserve«. Accessed Nov 12, 2014, from http://www.bee-ev.de/_
downloads/publikationen/sonstiges/2013/20130513_Fachdialog_Strategische_Reserve.pdf
BMUB. (2014). Nationale Klimapolitik. Accessed Oct 22, 2014, from http://www.bmub.bund.de/
themen/klima-energie/klimaschutz/nationale-klimapolitik/ (2014).
BMWi Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie. (2014a). 10-Punkte-Energie-Agenda. p. 3.

Accessed Oct 22, 2014, from http://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Redaktion/PDF/0-9/10-punkte-
energie-agenda,property¼pdf,bereich¼bmwi2012,sprache¼de,rwb¼true.pdf
BMWi. (2014b). Zeitreihen zur Entwicklung der erneuerbaren Energien in Deutschland, as of: Aug
2014. p. 7. Accessed Oct 27, 2014, from http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/EE/Redaktion/
DE/Downloads/zeitreihen-zur-entwicklung-der-erneuerbaren-energien-in-deutschland-1990-
2013.pdf?__blob¼publicationFile&v¼13
BMWi. (2014c). Energiedaten, Tab. 7: Endenergieverbrauch nach Anwendungsbereichen. Latest
update: 8 Oct 2014. Accessed Nov 12, 2014, from http://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Redaktion/
Binaer/energie-daten-gesamt,property¼blob,bereich¼bmwi2012,sprache¼de,rwb¼true.xls
BNetzA Bundesnetzagentur. (2013). Genehmigung des Szenariorahmens f€ ur den
Netwerkentwicklungsplan 2014 (Az.: 6.00.03.05/13-08-30/Szenariorahmen 2013). p. 2.
Accessed Oct 22, 2014, from http://www.netzausbau.de/cln_1412/DE/Bedarfsermittlung/Char
lie/SzenariorahmenCharlie/SzenariorahmenCharlie-node.html
BNetzA. (2014a). Kraftwerksliste, as of: 16 July 2014. Accessed Oct 27, 2014, from http://
www.bundesnetzagentur.de/DE/Sachgebiete/ElektrizitaetundGas/Unternehmen_Institutionen/
Versorgungssicherheit/Erzeugungskapazitaeten/Kraftwerksliste/kraftwerksliste-node.html
BNetzA. (2014b). Kraftwerksstilllegungsanzeigenliste, as of: 20 Oct 2014. Accessed Nov
12, 2014, from http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Sachgebiete/
Energie/Unternehmen_Institutionen/Versorgungssicherheit/Erzeugungskapazitaeten/KWSAL/
KWSAL_2014_10_20.pdf;jsessionid¼DD4F63C3B4EF2E482C79619B9FE7D8D5?__
blob¼publicationFile&v¼33 (2014).
BSW-Solar Bundesverband Solarwirtschaft e.V. (2014). Statistische Zahlen der deutschen
Solarstrombranche (Photovoltaik) f€ ur 2013, as of: Mar 2014. p. 1. Accessed Oct 27, 2014,
from http://www.solarwirtschaft.de/presse-mediathek/marktdaten.html
BWE Bundesverband WindEnergie e.V. (2013). Statistiken, as of: 31. Dec 2013. p. 2. Accessed
Oct 27, 2014, from http://www.wind-energie.de/themen/statistiken
Consentec. (2012). Versorgungssicherheit effizient gestalten—Erforderlichkeit, m€ ogliche
Ausgestaltung und Bewertung von Kapazit€ atsmechanismen in Deutschland. Untersuchung im
Auftrag der EnBW AG. pp. 39 following. Accessed Nov 12, 2014, from http://www.consentec.
de/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Consentec_EnBW_KapMärkte_Ber_20120207.pdf
Enervis enervis energy advisors GmbH. (2014). Einf€ uhrung eines dezentralen Leistungsmarktes in
Deutschland—Modellbasierte Untersuchung im Auftrag des Verbands kommunaler
Unternehmen e.V. pp. 9 following. Accessed Nov 12, 2014, from http://www.vku.de/
fileadmin/get/?28952/Einfuehrung_eines_dezentralen_Leistungsmarktes_in_Deutschland.pdf
oln. (2012). Untersuchungen zu einem
EWI Energiewirtschaftliches Institut an der Universität zu K€
zukunftsf€ahigen Elektrizit€
atsmarktdesign. Endbericht im Auftrag des BMWi, pp. 55 following.
Accessed Nov 12, 2014, from http://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Redaktion/PDF/Publikationen/
endbericht-untersuchungen-zu-einem-zukunftsfaehigen-elektizitätsmarktdesign.pdf
Focht, P. (2014, May 14). Grüner Strom für Gelbes Viertel. E&M POWERNEWS.
Öko-Institut, LBD-Beratungsgesellschaft, RAUE LLP. (2012). Fokussierte Kapazit€ atsm€
arkte. Ein
neues Marktdesign f€ €
ur den Ubergang zu einem neuen Energiesystem. Studie f€ ur den WWF
Deutschland. Accessed Oct 22, 2014, from http://www.wwf.de/fileadmin/fm-wwf/
Publikationen-PDF/Fokussierte-Kapazitaetsmaerkte.pdf
Öko-Institut. (2014). Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz 3.0 (Kurzfassung). Studie im Auftrag von
Agora Energierevolution. Accessed Oct 22, 2014, from http://www.agora-energy revolution.
de/fileadmin/downloads/publikationen/Impulse/EEG_30/Agora_Energy revolution_EEG_3_
0_KF_web.pdf
Schlemmermeier, B. (2012, February 1). Vom Energielieferanten zum Systemdienstleister.
Energie & Management, E-World Spezial, p. 42.
Schlemmermeier, B. (2014). Pl€ adoyer f€ ur einen Kapazit€ atsmarkt. Vortrag zum
Elektrizit€atsmarktdesign 2.0. Accessed Nov 12, 2014, from http://www.lbd.de/cms/pdf-
vortraege-praesentation/1410_Landesregierung-BW_Vortrag_LBD_Handout.pdf
Schlemmermeier, C. (2013, June 15). Menschen und Meinungen. Sagen Sie mal Claudia
Schlemmermeier. Energie & Management, p. 32.
Schorsch, C. (2014, July 15). Eigenstrom-Service. Genug Potenzial für alle. Energie & Manage-
ment, p. 10.
Schorsch, C., & Schlemmermeier, C. (2014, March 1). Die Zukunft beginnt heute. Energie &
Management, p. 21.
Shell und BDH. (2013). Shell Deutschland Oil GmbH und BDH. Hauswärme-Studie. Klimaschutz
im Wohnungssektor—Wie heizen wir morgen? p. 27. Accessed Oct 27, 2014, from http://s08.
static-shell.com/content/dam/shell-new/local/country/deu/downloads/pdf/comms-shell-bdh-
heating-study-2013.pdf.
TÜV Süd. (2014). TUV€ SUD€ AG, Wegbereiter der Energierevolution. Press release on 21 Oct
2014. Accessed Oct 27, 2014, from http://www.tuev-sued.de/anlagen-bau-industrietechnik/
aktuelles/wegbereiter-der-energierevolution
Ben Schlemmermeier joined LBD-Beratungsgesellschaft

mbH (LBD) in 1989. Since 1991 he has been one of three
managing partners of LBD. As a specialist in the energy
market, LBD provides advisory services for all stages of the
value chain. Among its customers are municipal utilities,
international energy suppliers, the oil and gas industry,
newcomers, state sector, service providers, politics,
associations, industry, banks, renewable energy companies,
and aggregators. The key topics of Ben Schlemmermeier
include advising on complex structures and contracts at all
stages of the energy sector’s value chain, projects, mergers
and acquisitions, corporate finance, project finance, and
corporate restructuring, as well as consulting services concerning the future electricity market
design and the development of visions, targets, positioning, strategies, and sustainable business
models.
Bj€orn Drechsler holds a diploma in engineering and has

been active as a management consultant at
LBD-Beratungsgesellschaft mbH (LBD) since 2006 in the
field of energy and emissions. Among his consulting topics
are analyses of the energy sector and expert opinions on
renewable and conventional energy production, emissions
trading, and the wholesale and control energy markets. He is
project manager in transactions to acquire conventional and
renewable power plants and also carries out profitability
analyses and feasibility studies for renewable energy and
combined heat and power installations, demand-side man-
agement, battery storage, and electric mobility. In recent
years he has had a consulting focus on the development
and assessment of sustainable strategies and business
models for the “New World” of the energy sector, such as self-consumption, tenant electricity,
and virtual power plants.
Driving Renewables: Business Models
for the Integration of Renewable Energy
and e-Mobility in Europe
Marc Ringel
Abstract
Linking renewable energy sources (RES) and electric vehicles (EVs) enables
various new business models and ancillary services. These services largely act to
facilitate the interface between the energy and transport sectors. In this contri-
bution we review the potential options from both energy and transport
perspectives in the European context. From a transport perspective, marketing
green power as fuel for EVs is the most obvious connection. From an energy
systems perspective, EVs and their battery storage can offer potentially attrac-
tive options to balance grid frequency and thereby introduce more fluctuating
RES into the generation mix. The so-called ‘sector coupling’ comprises passive
and active system services to stabilize electricity networks, such as passive
storage (grid to vehicle), active vehicle-to-grid recharging or balancing services.
The full potential of these services is less obvious at the individual car level. It
becomes evident at the level of a full fleet of EVs connected to the grid. A series
of innovative business models emerges in a wider perspective: E-mobility and
related transport services can be coupled to energy services. These portfolios
offer the most promising deployment strategy of driving renewables in the
transport sector.
Keywords
Sustainable transportation • Renewable energy sources • Electric vehicles •
Sector coupling • Business models
M. Ringel (*)
Faculty of Economics and Law, Energy Economics, Nuertingen Geislingen University,
Parkstrasse 4, 73360 Geislingen, Germany
e-mail: marc.ringel@hfwu.de

240 M. Ringel
1 Introduction
E-mobility and renewable energy sources (RES) are cornerstones of European

climate change policies. The European Union (EU) has set itself the goal of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions by 40 % in 2030 and by 80/95 % in 2050 compared to 1990
levels (European Council 2014). This almost total decarbonization will require a total
transformation of the energy and transport systems. Both are at present largely
dependent on carbon-intensive fossil fuels. On the energy side, these fuels cover at
present 35.9 % of the total energy production in the EU (2015). Transport is heavily
dependent on oil, with 94 % of EU transport consumption based on oil and oil
products (European Commission 2015a).
RES are key drivers for substituting fossil resources in all energy uses (electric-
ity, heating/cooling, transport). Their uptake is most pronounced in electricity
generation. All EU member states have installed support mechanisms to increase
the share of RES in electricity production. Underlying the support schemes is the
logic to gradually lower differential costs and thus incorporate RES into the
electricity market. This implies that producers are being increasingly forced to
develop business models for the use of RES without any state support.
Unlike electricity generation, the potential role of RES to cover heating and
cooling demand was less in focus. This changed with the introduction of a dedicated
European framework, starting with the RES Directive (Directive 2009/28/EC;
European Commission 2009), the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive
(Directive 2010/30/EC, European Commission 2010), the Energy Efficiency Direc-
tive (Directive 2012/27/EC, European Commission 2012), and recently the
European Commission’s Strategy on Heating and Cooling (European Commission
2016). Owing to this regulatory framework, RES’ contribution to heating and
cooling has significantly increased. RES now deliver some 503.4 petajoule
(PJ) or 30.5 % of Europe’s gross heat generation (DG Energy 2015). A large
increase in the use of electrical heat pumps has occurred, linking electricity and
heating/cooling uses (so-called system coupling).
The transport sector in the EU consumes 348.5 PJ or 34 % of total final energy.
With its present fuel structure, the transport sector accounts for 24 % of total EU
CO2 emissions (DG Climate Action 2016a, b). The heavy use of oil and oil products
also raises concerns about supply security and competitiveness. The EU needs to
import 90 % of transport oil products, making it subject to delivery failures and
speculative price fluctuations. Both effects combined amounted to EUR 50 billion
in the period 2007–2010, which is projected to grow over time (European Commis-
sion 2015a, 2011a).
To break the oil hold of the transport sector, the European Commission and
member states introduced regulatory efforts. These mainly focus on expanding
renewable energy use in the transport system. This can be done directly (introducing
biofuels) or indirectly, following the example of the heating sector and coupling the
electricity and transport sectors. In the latter case, RES electricity is used as fuel for
electric vehicles (EVs). According to some estimates (Pehnt et al. 2007),
RES-powered EVs could help to avoid some 600 to 800 g greenhouse gas emissions
Driving Renewables: Business Models for the Integration of Renewable Energy. . . 241
per kilowatt-hour (kWh). This in turn would be compatible with curbing transport
emissions to 43 g CO2/km by 2050. Stakeholders assess this figure as being compati-
ble with the international 2 C global warming target laid down in the Paris Agree-
ment (BMUB 2013; UNFCCC 2015).
A massive introduction of RES-powered EVs leads to a broader concept of green
mobility. The concept rests on two pillars: (1) providing mass mobility services
based on renewable energies and (2) taking advantage of the EV fleet’s battery
storage to develop positive synergies for the electricity system. Because these
services will need to be offered in liberalized markets, system coupling will trigger
new business models for RES in the transport sector.
In this connection, several questions arise: What are the key economic and
technical features of EVs? Why is it only in recent times that e-mobility has
emerged? What kind of regulatory framework in Europe should produce the
aforementioned synergies? What are the potential interactions of RES and EVs?
And most importantly: How can the system coupling of energy and transport be
used to develop business models that successfully integrate RES and e-mobility?
To answer these questions, our contribution will outline the basics of e-mobility
in Sect. 2. Section 3 proposes a review of the regulatory framework in the EE, both
at the European and national levels. For the national level, the EV uptake strategy of
Germany is presented as a case study. In Sect. 4, we will review several business
models for the integration of RES and EVs. It will become clear that these models
will strongly depend on the national context and can deliver benefits either from the
transport or the energy angle. Section 5 summarizes our findings and draws
conclusions on the successful deployment of these business models.
2 E-Mobility Basics
Electricity-driven engines are commonly considered a recent technical innovation.

This view disregards the that the underlying technology has existed for more than
100 years. In 1891 Gustave Trouvé presented an electric tricycle in France,
followed shortly by the Belgian Jenatzky’s electric car. It was the first car to
reach a velocity of more than 100 km/h (BMBF 2013; Ruppert 2013). The electric
power train technology quickly fell behind the internal combustion engine since the
latter offers considerable advantages such as greater flexibility, a simpler infra-
structure for fuel supply, and a comparatively cheap operation mode—particularly
in times of low-priced fossil fuels.
At present, this argument of low fuel prices still holds true to a certain extent. In
the mid-term, though, all major institutions and market players project an increase
in the price of fossil fuels (IEA 2016a; BP 2016; EIA 2016). Rising prices offer a
strong incentive to switch to EVs. Here, the efficiency degree of primary energy use
is much more advantageous, leading to lower losses of primary energy input.
As shown in Fig. 1, a standard internal combustion engine accounts for a loss of
81 % of the primary energy of the fuel employed in the operation of the power train.
In comparison, a fuel cell with a loss of “only” 74 % shows much better
242 M. Ringel
Energy input Use energy

Internal primary
combuson energy 92% 92% 22% 19%
engine (100%)
extracon distribuon motor
primary 48%
91% 86% 70%
Fuel cell energy
(100%) 26%
e-motor
electrolysis distribuon Fuel cell
primary
Electric 92% 89% 86%
energy 70%
vehicle (100%)
distribuon charging & e-motor

baery
Fig. 1 Energy flowchart of different power trains (based on BMUB 2013)
performance. EVs with a loss of some 30 % of primary energy clearly perform best
in this comparison. This applies all the more once the electricity required for the
power train is obtained from RES such as wind or photovoltaics with an input/
output efficiency level of 100 %.
Following this analysis, many European governments have focused their
research and development (R&D) and rolling-out strategies on vehicles that are
1. powered by an electric motor and

2. supplied through the public electric grid.
Clearly the focus is on electricity as a fuel and the integration of general electricity
provision and e-mobility. This comprises the following vehicle technologies:
Battery electric vehicle (BEV): vehicle equipped solely with an electric motor
driven by a battery. The battery is either built in and loaded at charging stations via
the public power network or empty batteries can be replaced at special battery-
changing stations;
Range-extended electric vehicles (REEVs): A small combustion motor (range

extender) provides supplemental power in case of a low battery level. The aim is to
increase the still short/small operating distance of the batteries supplied. However,
the vehicle is not directly driven by this range extender;
Hybrid electric vehicle (HEV): combination of a combustion motor and electric

drive, that is, plug-in HEV (PHEV), that equips hybrid vehicles with direct access
to the power network.
It should be noted that these power train options are not limited to cars but apply
to EVs at large, including e-bikes, e-buses (so-called public e-transport), or the
transport of goods (clean logistics). The larger field of applications opens up
possibilities for a larger concept of e-mobility and a series of new mobility options.
Approaches such as car sharing, bike sharing, or new intermodal forms of transport
are increasingly being taken into consideration in EV deployment strategies.
(BMWi 2014a; BMBF 2013; Canzler 2010). With these concepts, the automobile
and energy sectors strongly interact and have become more and more intertwined
(so-called sector blending). If in particular green electricity is us as fuel, this
constitutes an important factor of success for the general acceptance of
e-mobility. Also, sector coupling can allow for a multitude of innovative business
models. These still strongly depend on the regulatory frameworks and the market
developments in the individual regions and countries.
3 Regulatory and Market Framework in Europe
3.1 European Versus National Regulation
3.1.1 Market Situation

The global stock of EVs amounted to 1.26 million in 2015. This figure is expected
to almost double in 2016 (IEA 2016b). The European EV stock represents about
one third of this total figure. In 2015, a McKinsey study ranked many European
countries as lead markets for e-mobility. In particular, Norway, the Netherlands,
and France are seen as lead markets, showing a higher market potential than the
USA or China, their global competitors (McKinsey & Company 2016).
The lead market classification comprises several aspects. One is the availability
of EV models by the car producers of a given country. This aspect is relevant in the
case of car manufacturers in the USA, South Korea, France, Italy, or Germany that
are able to compete on the global market. Another aspect is the availability of
low-carbon electricity supply to allow for a scaled uptake on electric mobility. Here
countries with a large share of nonfossil generation sources such as Norway and
Germany are in focus. Finally, relatively dense settlement structures as in the
Randstad region of the Netherlands (Regio Randstad 2014) facilitate deployment
and avoid the need for range extension of EVs.
The interplay of these aspects only partially explains the diversity in EV stocks
in Europe (Figs. 2 and 3).
3.1.2 Regulatory Situation

Adding to the European regulatory framework on RES, the Europe-wide level
provides a comprehensive regulatory framework for national policies in the trans-
port sector. The sector contributes to the overall 2020 and 2030 sustainable energy
and climate strategies (Council of the European Union 2007 and 2014). The
244 M. Ringel
Netherlands 43,441
Norway 33,721
UK 28,715
Germany 23,481
France 22,867
Sweden 8,588
Denmark 4,643
Belgium 3,837
Austria 2,787
Italy 2,283
Fig. 2 Registration of new EVs in selected EU countries (2015) (based on Acea 2016)
European Commission’s 2011 white paper on transport (European Commission

2011b) further substantiates targets for the transport sector. The paper presents the
vision of a competitive and sustainable transport sector. Transport is supposed to
lower its present CO2 emissions by 60 % so as to achieve the overall 80/95 %
decarbonization target in 2050 (European Commission 2011a, b).
The EU transport strategy summarizes and aligns existing EU legislation. The
legislative acquis consists of:
• Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28: EU member states need to reach a 10 %

RES share in transport fuels by 2020;
• Fuel Quality Directive 2009/30: CO2 intensity of fuels sold in the EU need to be
reduced by 6 % by 2020;
• EURO standards, regulating pollutant emissions of vehicles; and
• regulation of CO2 emissions from vehicles: Car fleets of producers of passenger
cars sold in the EU must on average remain below 130 g CO2 eq/km by 2015 and
95 g/km by 2020. For light-duty vehicles the limit is fixed at 175 g/km by 2017.
In particular, the CO2 emissions regulation provides strong incentives for

European car makers to introduce EVs in their fleet portfolio. Vehicles with CO2
emissions below 50 g/km are counted with a multiplying factor in the calculation of
the fleet average, the so-called super credits (DG Climate Action 2016b). EVs run
on tail-end zero CO2 emissions. This is a key argument for their inclusion in car
fleets (VCD 2015).
European manufacturers’ strong interest in EVs is not only triggered by regulatory
requirements. Meeting stringent emission standards is a condition for access to global
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
2013 2020 RES Target
Fig. 3 Share of RES in electricity production in selected EU countries (2015) (based on figures
from DG Energy 2015)
EV markets, since by now many major economies have set up comparable standards
(Fig. 4). Meeting and surpassing these standards is a key competitive advantage.
Two additional pillars are relevant for the European support of EVs. First is the
increase in (energy and resource) efficiency in all transport modes by dedicated
R&D support; second is the overall substitution of oil products as the main energy
carriers in the transport sector. This logic asks for systematically switching to
alternative fuels and related mobility technologies (European Commission 2013a).
The European Commission has explicitly spelled out its strategy on using
alternative fuels in its 2013 communication “Clean Power for Transport”
(European Commission 2013a) and the subsequent clean fuels directive (Directive
2014/94/EU; European Commission 2014). Both documents treat e-mobility as one
puzzle piece in a more comprehensive substitution strategy (Table 1). The Com-
mission estimates that EV mass rollout is advantageous in short- to medium-range
passenger transport and short-range road transport. As a consequence, it advocates a
scaled rollout of e-mobility, especially in cities and urban regions.
246 M. Ringel
200 190
US
180 China
180 167
Japan
160 152
EU
140
130
121
120 125
117
105
100 93
95
0
2010 2015 2020 2025
Fig. 4 Car emission standards in selected regions (g CO2/km in normalized European Drive
Cycle) (based on ARF 2014)
Table 1 European Alternative Fuels Strategy (European Commission 2013a, 2015b)

Road transport (range) Road freight (range) Rail
Mode Short Medium Long Short Medium Long
LPG ∎ ∎ ∎ ∎ ∎ ∎
Hydrogen ∎ ∎ ∎ ∎ ∎
Electricity ∎ (∎) ∎ ∎
Biofuels ∎ ∎ ∎ ∎ ∎ ∎ ∎
The EU provisions clearly define the rollout of EVs as a national if not regional
task. European regulations support these strategies by providing funding and
reducing barriers that hinder cross-border mobility.
Analyses of the European Commission suggest that the combination of regional,
national, and Europe-wide support for EVs will lead to clear economic benefits for
the EU. Substitution of transport fuels is projected to save EUR 4.2 billion by 2020
and EUR 9.3 billion by 2030. Avoided price fluctuations are expected to save EUR
1 billion per annum. With the boost for regional fuels and technologies some
700,000 new jobs are anticipated, mainly due to first-mover advantages on global
markets (European Commission 2013a, b).
The clean fuel directive spells out concrete actions and regulations for each fuel
type. The provisions for e-mobility comprise mainly three aspects: (1) charging
technology and standards, (2) charging points, and (3) consumer information:
• In terms of charging technology, the clean fuel directive harmonizes recharging

plugs and standards (the so-called type 2 or Mennekes plug for slow charging;
the CCS or combo standard for fast charging) while at the same time
safeguarding the use of alternative plugs through 2019;
• Member states need to provide an “appropriate” number of charging points in
urban/suburban and other densely populated areas. In a follow-up communica-
tion, the European Commission presented a proposal in terms of concrete
numbers (Table 2). The charging points must be in place by 2020 and reported
to the Commission in a national strategy document, the “National Policy Frame-
work” (NPF), by late 2019 and every 3 years thereafter;
• Setting up appropriate consumer information on alternative fuels, including a
clear and sound price comparison methodology, for example, by intelligent
tagging and mapping of charging stations.
The sectoral regulations on RES and EVs are brought together in the EU’s
Energy Union strategy of 2015 (European Commission 2015c; Ringel 2015a).
The Energy Union confirms the EU target of reaching a minimum of 27 % RES
in 2030. It stipulates that the rollout strategy for alternative fuels and e-mobility
needs to run in parallel in all EU member states. The Commission confirms its
supporting role while underlining that the rollout is a task for the member states:
“The Commission will take further action to create the right market conditions for
an increased deployment of alternative fuels and to further promote procurement of
clean vehicles. This will be delivered through a mix of national, regional and local
measures, supported by the EU.” (European Commission 2015a)
This implies that business models for the integration of RES in the transport
sector will depend strongly on the national framework conditions. In many cases,
these framework conditions still need to be defined. As an example, for a relatively
advanced framework, we will turn to the German energy and e-mobility market.
Table 2 Charging infrastructure: status quo 2011 and proposal 2020 (based on European Com-
mission 2013c)
Member Available infrastructure Proposal for publicly Number of EVs
State (charging points) 2011 available charging points projected for 2020a
Austria 489 12,000 250,000
Germany 1937 150,000 1,000,000
Denmark 280 5000 200,000
France 1600 97,000 2,000,000
Italy 1350 125,000 130,000
Netherlands 1700 32,000 200,000
Spain 1356 82,000 2,500,000
Sweden – 14,000 600,000
UK 703 122,000 1,550,000
a
2015 for Italy
248 M. Ringel
3.2 National Deployment Strategies: The Case of Germany
In 2015 Germany had a stock of 49,000 EVs in place (IEA 2016b; IEA-HEV 2015).
Despite this relatively low number, the German government has committed itself to
attain a target of one million EVs by 2020 (BMBF 2009). This target is to underpin
a strategy of turning Germany into a leading market and a leading producer for
e-mobility. Fostering e-mobility is also a key objective in terms of energy policies.
On the one hand it will make it possible to introduce more RES into the energy
system. On the other hand, the energy strategy of the government (Energiewende,
or energy transition) (Ringel et al. 2016) asks for a reduction of transport’s specific
energy use of 10 % by 2020 and 40 % by 2050 or to 2005 consumption values
(Bundesregierung 2010; Bertram and Bongard 2014).
The e-mobility strategy of 2011 (BMVI 2011) and the coalition agreement of the
present government (Bundesregierung 2013) further substantiate the objectives by
dedicated measures, notably in terms of R&D. As the coupling of energy and
mobility markets poses both a variety of options and technical challenges, the
federal government and the federal states have set up so-called model regions. In
these model regions, different aspects of RES-based e-mobility are tested. The
combination of lighthouse projects and regional “showcase projects” have made it
possible to develop technical specifications to back up the sector convergence
(BMWi 2014a). By now, a multitude of regional and local programs and measures
further enhance the federal government’s initiatives (e-mobil BW 2015).
After a first phase of establishing networking and coordination mechanisms, the
government now aims at a mass rollout of e-mobility. This concerns both the public
and private sectors. In the public sector, e-mobility is encouraged by public
procurement. For private and business customers, the federal government grants a
buyer’s premium of EUR 4000 for BEVs and EUR 3000 for HEVs (“environmental
bonus” program; BAFA 2016). The grant program started in July 2016 and covers
the private procurement of vehicles with prices of up to EUR 60,000. In a first stage,
the program is endowed with a total budget of EUR 1.2 million and will end
automatically once this sum is spent. The German government and EV
manufacturers share the subsidy volume on even terms. In addition to exemption
from car tax, nonmonetary benefits, such as the use of bus lanes and free parking
lots, are included in the government’s support package (Bundesregierung 2016;
Ringel 2015b).
Despite regulatory and monetary support for the development of e-mobility, the
government’s declared objective is to establish the German suppliers as competitive
producers for “green mobility”. Several studies (Bozem et al. 2013; Fazel 2014)
underline that customers see a clear value added and additional buying argument
for EV once they are coupled with RES. Along this line the government considers
its support as initial aid for the market actors. These actors are strongly encouraged
to develop business models combining RES and EV which are competitive on
global scale.
4 Options and Business Models for the Integration

of Renewable Energy Sources
The politically fostered integration of the transport and energy sectors paves the
way for several options and business models to combine RES and EVs. Providing
green power as fuel for electric mobiles is the closest and most obvious link
between both fields. The use of RES electricity (in times of oversupply compara-
tively cheap or even zero/negative prices) increases the ecological and economic
attractiveness of EVs. From this perspective, RES development serves facilitates
the introduction of e-mobility.
Additional options and business models appear with an increased installation
of fluctuating RES on the energy side. In this case the interaction of RES
installations and EVs can provide at least three distinct ancillary services to the
power grid:
• EVs as passive load shedding option in times of RES production above grid
capacity,
• EVs as active storage facilities,
• EVs providing balancing services to stabilize grid frequency.
In addition, other options for business model integration are conceivable. At the
individual level, combining in-home RES (mainly photovoltaics) and EVs can offer
so-called energy self-reliance. This in turn would stabilize and mitigate
decentralized feed-ins into the general power grids. It can be expected that business
models on self-sufficient electricity generation, including individual charging of
EVs at home, will expand from a niche market to a larger customer base at some
point in time. Contrary to such specialized business models, traditional suppliers
can be expected to focus on core and ancillary services of the EV/RES combination
provided to the general electricity and transport systems.
4.1 RES as Supplier of “Green Power”
RES-produced electricity highlights the full panoply of ecological benefits of

e-mobility. CO2 and local air pollutant emissions are avoided at both the input
and tail-end levels. This option is physically only possible once charging points are
directly coupled to RES installations, such as wind parks or PV systems. Provided
that the production capacity is sufficient to cover charging needs, connected EVs
will drive fully on RES. This “green mobility” service offers 100 % carbon-free
mobility.
In Europe several regions exist where the physical link between RES
installations and EV fleets has been established. On the research side, several EU-
or state-funded lighthouse projects test the opportunities and challenges of this
direct linking. On the commercial side, many car manufacturers have by now
invested in RES installations, such as wind or PV parks (VWK 2013). The key
250 M. Ringel
aim is to deliver the selling argument “100 % RES” for their e-mobiles in a
given area.
The potential for such direct linking of RES installations and EVs used to be
judged as relatively small. Still the option becomes an increasingly realistic one
thanks to a growing decentralization of energy production and larger shares of RES
self-production by home-owned PV installations. For the time being, though, a
physical direct coupling of RES and EVs is economically inefficient on larger
scales (Pehnt et al. 2007). In addition, synchronizing the production of regionally
and seasonally fluctuating RES with e-mobility charging patterns remains challeng-
ing (Linsen et al. 2013).
It follows that the general electricity grid infrastructure will provide the power
for the large majority of EVs. This in turn implies that the overall generation park
close to charging points will determine the “greenness” of the traction current.
Because it is physically impossible to attribute a RES generation technology to a
dedicated customer—Pehnt et al. (2007) refer to this theoretical option as the
“renewable electron”—the EV fleets of a country will be charged on average
using the prevailing pool of generation technologies. Depending on the primary
energy production mix, the ecological balance of EVs can vary significantly.
Figure 5 shows a comparison of the electricity generation mix of selected
European countries.
As the feed-in from the various generation sources varies constantly over time, a
stronger link between EVs and RES can be established in physical terms by
charging EV batteries at times when the share of RES in the generation pool is
high. To match times of high RES feed-ins with EV charging, a suitable informa-
tion and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure needs to be in place. This
infrastructure would send the “charging” signal to a grid-connected EV to start the
loading process. Even with ICT use, synchronizing feed-in peaks and charging
processes remains challenging because it could also affect user behavior (Linsen
et al. 2013). Some associations (BEE 2010) plead for the integration of smart
meters into EVs to facilitate information exchange between grid conditions and
charging needs.
Some authors suggest that the ICT solutions could enable a dialer concept like
that in telecommunications between EVs and the power grid. A customer would
have the possibility to book the charging process with a dedicated producer of green
power via a chip card. The RES producer would then increase its feeds into the grid
on demand.
The preceding discussion shows that a synchronized physical delivery of RES
for EV charging will remain challenging with existing technologies. The use of
commercial relationships could serve as a back-up. Charging volumes could be
covered by the additional purchase of green certificates or guarantees of origin
certifying that an equivalent amount of power was produced by RES and fed into
the grid.
With the EU RES Directive and subsequent national registers in place, a more
transparent tracking of production and trading of these so-called European Energy
Certifications (EECs) is possible (Seebach and Mohrbach 2013). Already by now
80%
70%
EU total
60% Belgium
50% Denmark
40% Germany
30% Spain
France
20%
Sweden
10%
UK
0%
Solid Fuels Nuclear RES Gases
Fig. 5 Electricity generation mix of selected European countries (DG Energy 2015)
ecolabels and EECs constitute the basis for direct green power commercialization
in mainstream electricity markets. Their use in providing commercial backup for
green operating power for EVs seems realistic in the absence of more enhanced ICT
solutions.
The additional market volume for RES, which is connected with EV charging, is
judged to be relatively small by several stakeholders (BEE 2010; Pehnt et al. 2007).
In the German case, the projected one million EVs are expected to consume some
additional 2–3 terawatt-hours (TWh). Compared to the overall 629 TWh electricity
production (BMWi 2014b), this additional consumption seems subordinate to other
uses. It is likely to be covered by a moderate increase in RES facilities. This in turn
implies that “green charging power” is a limited business model on its own, mainly
in connection with marketing. However, the concept can develop a larger scope if
combined with additional commercialization opportunities.
5 System Services as Power Consumer and Storage Facility
Grid capacities and the stabilization of grid frequency are challenges in almost all
countries developing RES on a larger scale. A significant increase in fluctuating
RES like wind energy or photovoltaics have led in many EU countries to situations
with electricity oversupply. With dispatch obligations in place this can lead to
situations with negative market prices at the power exchanges. Conversely, insuffi-
cient supply requires increased use of so-called backup or balancing energy. Both
situations are inherently destabilizing for the overall electricity networks.
In these situations, ICT and smart metering can prove an important enabler of
system service offerings. Two-way communication channels installed at charging
points can log connected EVs into the electricity network. Power grid operators
could then have access to the connected EVs to use them as passive storage facility
252 M. Ringel
for RES oversupply. In undersupply situations, the system operator can send signals
to charging points to stop or slow down EV charging if battery capacity is still
sufficient (grid to vehicle, G2V). In both cases, detailed information about charging
points and connected EVs is necessary and would include charge status, place of
charging, and allocation to grid balancing area.
The business model in the case of RES over- or undersupply would link charging
processes or charging slowdowns/stops to dedicated flexible tariffs, the so-called
demand response. Consumers willing to flexibly adapt their charging behavior to
grid system availability would get preferential charging rates. These rates would be
cross-financed by the grid operators. Having access to additional power storage and
load shedding potential enables operators to forego expensive system services to
stabilize network frequency in connection with other actors.
It needs to be underlined that several conditions need to be met for a full
application of this model. Dedicated tariffs must be on offer and attractive enough
for consumers. The EV fleet offering the storage capacity would logically need to
be associated with the balancing area where the electricity oversupply is occurring.
In Europe, the case of Germany, which has a one million EV target, might be
able to provide the greatest storage potential. If we assume a storage capacity of
12 kWh/vehicle, this in turn provides the country with an additional storage
capacity of some 12 GWh. Opposed to this theoretical storage potential is an
estimated oversupply of some 66,000 GWh projected for 2050 (Nitsch 2007;
Wietschel 2006), half of which is already in place at present.
This implies that using EVs for storage can again only be one component in a
more comprehensive strategy to increase the use of RES by means of e-mobility. It
strongly depends on (1) the development of ICT solutions to allow for two-way
communication and (2) innovations in storage technology allowing larger power
storage volumes for EVs.
6 Green Balancing Power
Grid-connected EVs in an intelligent, ICT-based grid infrastructure can enable the

business model of actively supporting grid stability. In this case, the connected EVs
would actively feed back stored electricity into the grid. These feeds can be
marketed as balancing services to stabilize grid frequency in times of undersupply.
Such a vehicle-to-grid (V2G) business model was originally tested in the USA. It
has been taken up in several research projects in Europe (Garcia-Valle and Lopes
2013). Using EVs as a power source or power sink can offer a much broader
business model as the passive storage function discussed in Sect. 5. Balancing
power in the EU is provided across the European network area as a whole. This
reduces the need for large volumes of balancing power since a multitude of plants
can cover the balance by comparatively small contributions to so-called secondary
and tertiary control.
The attractiveness of the so-called balancing power business model is more
pronounced in a scaled perspective and when combined with the green charging
model discussed in Sect. 4.1: Rather than offering this service at the individual EV
level, several EVs can be coupled into a virtual balancing power plant. Estimates
suggest that one million EVs could cover a balancing power of some 3 gigawatt.
Especially for countries with limited options for RES balancing services like pump
storage, V2G balancing might be attractive. It would enable and facilitate a larger
RES share in the system. For the case of Germany, grid operator figures (BNetzA
2014) list an installed pump storage capacity of some 9.3 GW installed and a further
4.5 GW planned. Including the V2G business model in this framework would imply
covering two thirds of the additional capacity needs by e-mobility balancing.
Offering balancing services via e-mobility might prove especially attractive for
regional and local suppliers. Often these suppliers run their own e-mobility fleets.
As a result, they can easily integrate balancing service options in their planning of
charging infrastructure. Second, regional providers often run low- and medium-
voltage grid systems. They are directly concerned with fluctuating feed-ins from
RES that occur at this grid level. In-grid balancing can help them to stabilize their
operation systems. Using a two-way coupling of the power grid and the e-mobility
feed-in and storage, an active balancing can be achieved. G2V and V2G combined
enable a broader and more stable increase of fluctuating RES in the generation mix.
Oversupply of RES electricity is fed into the EV fleet and released into the grid as
green balancing energy.
As with the other business models, the necessary conditions for these services
are smart meters and smart grids. ICT solutions need to act as the logistical
backbone for operating the system and enabling a so-called green balancing
power business model. This ICT intervention involves finding answers to various
legal problems such as data ownership or data protection (Mayer and Klein 2013).
7 Discussion: Opportunities and Limits of Green Mobility

Business Models
The foregoing analysis shows that RES deployment and e-mobility concepts can be
bundled into various synergetic business models. This synergy works directly via
the provision of RES power supplies for EVs. Indirectly, e-mobility concepts and
EVs support the integration of RES via storage and balancing systems, making G2V
and V2G a mutually beneficial combination.
Our analysis also shows that business model options are highly correlated with a
further development of ICT and key system components. At the demand-side level,
battery storage and overall production costs of EVs will remain key issues in the
coming years (Williamson 2013). On the supply side, smart grids/smart infrastruc-
ture and ICT tools need to be developed. Innovative business models depend
strongly on an optimal synchronization of supply and demand at large, but also
feed-ins and feed-outs of renewable-energy-sourced power at the individual level.
Tariff regulation and tariff structures are an additional issue for developing
innovative business models. Wrong regulation or commercial tariff setting might
significantly hinder the development of green mobility. This would be the case once
254 M. Ringel
the high procurement costs for EVs are surpassed by comparatively high variable
fuel costs by the mark-up of a green power tariff. Here the high CAPEX costs of
EVs cannot be recovered by lower maintenance costs through the use of RES in
low-price periods.
It is worthwhile to note that the opportunities to replace traditional internal
combustion engines with RES-powered EVs seem to be limited at the individual
level. Still they become more attractive once the whole EV fleet of a larger area or
even a country is considered, which would require a scaling of EV deployment.
Shifting to a broader perspective on e-mobility changes this analysis signifi-
cantly. Here EVs are not approached in terms of replacing cars one by one. They are
part of integrated and intermodal transport concepts. These services will be offered
mostly in cities and urban areas (Brand and Schmidt 2014; Institute for Mobility
Research 2013). Here, a number of green e-mobility services are conceivable that
relate to business segment vehicles, power, infrastructure, and supporting services
(Muratori et al. 2013). Experts anticipate that the clear-cut differentiation between
services offered by the automotive industry and the energy sector will blend.
Energy actors are expected to offer mobility services that are close to their core
business. In turn, mobility providers will consider bundling strategies to include
RES fuel in their portfolio.
Whereas it is still too early to clearly identify the emerging trends of this
blending, three examples can serve as illustrations of such strategies. First, a
wind farm operator might be interested in including “green power for mobility”
concepts in its portfolio. Such an operator could provide neighbors with physically
connected green power for their EVs, free of charge, with the aim of raising
acceptance for local wind power installations. This model mainly relates to market-
ing. Still, the positive support effect for RES could potentially be strong in densely
populated areas.
Second, dedicated green charging stations delivering 100 % RES power as
“premium fuel” might enter the market. With the planned increase in the number
of charging points in Europe, such a specialization of charging points might be
conceivable. This model could be implemented either physically or commercially
using intermediaries like ecolabels or green certificates. Like the present compen-
sation of CO2 emitted on business trips by paying into compensation schemes, such
a segment might be interesting for companies both at business-to-consumer (B2C)
and business-to-business (B2B) levels.
Finally, business models for RES uptake in the e-mobility sector could be used
as an add-on to the core business of established third-party service providers.
Parking lots or supermarkets could offer their clients “recharge as you park”/
“recharge as you shop” services. In these business models, EVs would be recharged
during parking. Such services might even be offered for free in RES surplus
conditions in the grid. EVs in charge mode could be used to offer balancing services
and thus compensate for the charging costs for the parking lot operators or cross
subsidize green power tariffs.
8 Conclusion
The presented review of European markets for RES and e-mobility shows that
regulatory framework conditions favor an uptake of business models for RES in the
transport sector. Whereas the European framework largely supports installing
appropriate infrastructure, it is up to the member states to develop and support
dedicated schemes to increase the use of EVs and e-mobility at large.
Combing RES and EVs (sector coupling) could trigger synergies for both
sectors. Enabling clean mobility not only by avoiding end-of-pipe emissions but
also on the fuel input side is a strong selling argument for EVs. As could be shown,
business models involving the coupling of RES with EVs are limited at the
individual level but become more attractive once scaled to the full vehicle fleet.
Likewise, a portfolio of various business models bundled around the core
operations of an electricity or transport provider can generate a clear value added.
The most promising and innovative business models occur with e-mobility and
dedicated transport services. Here EV deployment and RES development are
clearly mutually beneficial. The different applications are still limited by battery
storage capacities and dedicated ICT solutions to enable a two-way communication
between the power grid and EVs. Still, this barrier should only be a temporary one.
The underlying technologies—especially as concerns ICT—already exist and
require no disruptive innovations.
Once the relevant technologies are applied, the synchronization of RES and
e-mobility will allow a multitude of innovative business models to emerge, from the
perspective of both transport and energy sector operators. Besides a clear blending
of these two sectors, new actors will emerge that will further foster the uptake of
RES in Europe’s transport sector.
References
ACEA (European Automobile Manufacturers Association). (2016). Electric and alternative vehi-
cle registrations. Accessed July 2, 2016 from http://www.acea.be/statistics/tag/category/elec
tric-and-alternative-vehicle-registrations
ARF—Amsterdam Roundtable Foundation and McKinsey & Company The Netherlands. (2014).
EVolution. Electric vehicles in Europe: gearing up for a new phase. Accessed 22 June 2016.
BAFA. (2016). Elektromobilit€ at (Umweltbonus). Accessed July 2, 2016, from http://www.bafa.de/
bafa/de/wirtschaftsfoerderung/elektromobilitaet/
BEE—Bundesverband Erneuerbare Energie e.V. (2010). Elektromobilit€ at und Erneuerbare
Energien: BEE-Position. Accessed May 15, 2016, from http://www.bee-ev.de/_downloads/
publikationen/sonstiges/2010/1005_BEE-Position_Erneuerbare-Elektromobilitaet.pdf
Bertram, M., & Bongard, S. (2014). Elektromobilit€ at im motorisierten Individualverkehr:
Grundlagen, Einflussfaktoren und Wirtschaftlichkeitsvergleich. Wiesbaden: Springer.
BMBF—Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. (2009). Nationaler Entwicklungsplan
Mobilit€at der Bundesregierung. Bonn: BMBF.
BMBF—Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. (2013). Elektromobilit€ at—das Auto neu
denken. Bonn: BMBF.
256 M. Ringel
BMUB—Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit. (2013).

Erneuerbar mobil: Marktf€ ahige L€osungen f€ur eine klimafreundliche Elektromobilit€
at. Berlin:
BMUB.
BMVI—Bundesministerium für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur. (2011). Elektromobilit€ at—
Deutschland als Leitmarkt und Leitanbieter. Berlin: BMVI.
BMWi—Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie. (2014a). Smart energy made in Germany
smart energy made in Germany: Erkenntnisse zum Aufbau und zur Nutzung intelligenter
Energiesysteme im Rahmen der Energiewende. Berlin: BMWi.
BMWi—Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie. (2014b). Energiedaten—
Gesamtausgabe. http://bmwi.de/DE/Themen/Energie/Energiedaten-und-analysen/
Energiedaten/gesamtausgabe,did¼476134.html. Accessed 1 July 2014.
BNetzA—Bundenetzagentur. (2014). Zweiter Monitoring-Bericht “Energie der Zukunft”. Bonn:
BMWi.
Bozem, K., et al. (2013). Elektromobilit€ at: Kundensicht, Strategien, Gesch€ aftsmodelle:
Ergebnisse der repr€ asentativen Marktstudie Future Mobility. Berlin: Springer.
BP. (2016). Energy outlook. London: BP.
Brand, M., & Schmidt, A. (2014). Herausforderung Elektromobilität: Lehren aus den
Entwicklungen des Strom-, Bahn- und Mobilfunkmarktes. Energiewirtschaftliche
Tagesfragen, 64(3), 105–107.
Bundesregierung. (2010). Energiekonzept f€ ur eine umweltschonende, bezahlbare und sichere
Energieversorgung. Accessed June 23, 2016, from http://www.bundesregierung.de/
ContentArchiv/DE/Archiv17/_Anlagen/2012/02/energiekonzept-final.pdf.
Bundesregierung. (2013). Deutschlands Zukunft gestalten. Koalitionsvertrag zwischen CDU, CSU
und SPD. 18. Legislaturperiode. Accessed June 23, 2016, from http://www.bundesregierung.
de/Content/DE/_Anlagen/2013/2013-12-17-koalitionsvertrag.pdf?__blob¼publicationFile
Bundesregierung. (2016). Elektromobilit€ at: Einigung auf Kaufpr€ amie f€
ur E-Autos. Accessed July
2, 2016, from https://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/Artikel/2016/04/2016-04-27-
foerderung-fuer-elektroautos-beschlossen.html
Canzler, W. (2010). Mobilitätskonzepte der Zukunft und Elektromoblität. In R. Hüttl,
B. Pischetsrieder, & D. Spath (Eds.), Elektromobilit€at (pp. 39–61, Acatech Diskutiert). Berlin:
Springer.
Council of the European Union. (2007). Presidency conclusions of 2 May 2007. Doc. 7224/1/07
REV 1. Brussels: EU Council.
Council of the European Union. (2014). European Council (23 and 24 October 2014).
Conclusions. Doc. CO EUR 13 CONCL 5. Brüssel: European Council.
DG Climate Action. (2016a). Reducing emissions from transport. Accessed June 23, 2016, from
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/index_en.htm
DG Climate Action. (2016b). Reducing emissions from passenger cars. Accessed June 23, 2016,
from http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/cars/index_en.htm
DG Energy. (2015). EU energy in figures. Statistical pocketbook 2015. Brussels: European
Commission.
EIA—U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2016). International energy outlook. Report
number DOE/EIA-0484(2016). Accessed July 2, 2016, from http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/
ieo/world.cfm
e-mobil BW. (2015). Strukturstudie BWe-mobil. Stuttgart: Landesregierung Baden-Württemberg.
European Commission. (2009). Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and
amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (L 140,
5.6.2009). Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission. (2010). Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings (L 153, 18.6.2010).
European Commission. (2011a). Commission Communication “A Roadmap for moving to a
competitive low carbon economy in 2050”, COM (2011)112. Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission. (2011b). White Paper. Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area—
towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system: COM(2011) 144 final. Brussels:
European Commission.
Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/
30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC.
European Commission. (2013a). Communication clean power for transport: European alternative
fuels strategy. COM(2013)17 final. Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission. (2013b). Impact Assessment accompanying the document proposal for a
directive on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure. SWD(2013)5 final. Brussels:
European Commission. (2013c). Press release: EU launches clean fuel strategy. IP 13/40.
Brussels: European Commission.
Council of 22 October 2014 on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure.
European Commission. (2015a). Communication. A framework strategy for a Resilient Energy
Union with a Forward-Looking Climate Change Policy. COM/2015/080 final. Brussels:
European Commission. (2015b). A European strategy for alternative fuels. Policy perspective.
Presentation of 03 December 2015 to the Automotive intergroup meeting, Brussels.
European Commission. (2015c). Communication a framework strategy for a Resilient Energy
Union with a Forward-Looking Climate Change Policy. COM(2015) 80 final. Brüssel:
European Commission. (2016). An EU Strategy on Heating and Cooling. COM(2016) 51 final.
Brussels: European Commission.
Fazel, L. (2014). Akzeptanz von Elektromobilit€ at: Entwicklung und Validierung eines Modells
unter Ber€ucksichtigung der Nutzungsform des Carsharing (Schriften zum europ€ aischen Man-
agement). Wiesbaden: Springer.
Garcia-Valle, R., & Lopes, J. (2013). Electric vehicle integration into modern power networks
(Power electronics and power systems). New York: Springer.
IA-HEV—IEA Technology Collaboration Programme on Hybrid and Electric Vehicle Technologies.
(2015). Hybrid and electric vehicles: The electric drive delivers. Paris: IEA/OECD.
IEA—International Energy Agency. (2016a). Mid-term oil market report. Paris: IEA/OECD.
IEA—International Energy Agency. (2016b). Global EV Outlook 2016. Paris: IEA/OECD.
Institute for Mobility Research (ifmo). (2013). Megacities mobility: How cities move on in a
diverse world. Berlin: Springer.
Linsen, J., et al. (2013). Netzintegration von Elektrofahrzeugen und deren Auswirkungen auf die
Energieversorgung. Energiewirtschaftliche Tagesfragen, 63(1/2), 121–124.
Mayer, C., & Klein, C. (2013). Ladeinfrastruktur für Elektrofahrzeuge—rechtliche
Fragestellungen und Herausforderungen. Energiewirtschaftliche Tagesfragen, 63(8), 73–75.
McKinsey&Company. (2016). Automotive revolution—perspectives towards 2030: How the con-
vergence of disruptive technology-driven trends could transform the auto industry. Accessed
June 22, 2016.
Muratori, M., Marano, V., Rizzo, G., & Rizzoni, G. (2013). Electric mobility: From fossil fuels to
renewable energy, opportunities and challenges. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 46(21), 812–817.
doi:10.3182/20130904-4-JP-2042.00161.
Nitsch, J. (2007). Leitstudie 2007: “Ausbaustrategie Erneuerbare Energien”: Studie im Auftrag
des Bundesumweltministeriums. Stuttgart.
Pehnt, M., Hoepfner, U., & Merten, F. (2007). Elektromobilitaet und erneuerbare Energien
(Arbeitspapier Nr. 5).
Regio Randstad. (2014). Randstad monitor. Accessed July 1, 2016, from http://www.
randstadregion.eu/uploads/2014/09/randstadmonitor-voorkant.pdf
258 M. Ringel
Ringel, M. (2015a). Die europäische Energieunion—Ein Paradigmenwechsel der europäischen

Energiepolitik? Wirtschaftswissenschaftliches Studium—WiSt, 44(8), 456–460.
Ringel, M. (2015b). Elektromobilität als Absatzmarkt für Strom aus Erneuerbaren Energien:
M€ oglichkeiten und Grenzen des Geschäftsmodells “Grüne Mobilität”. In C. Herbes &
C. Friege (Ed.), Marketing Erneuerbarer Energien. Grundlagen, Gesch€ aftsmodelle,
Fallbeispiele (pp. 299–316).
Ringel, M., Schlomann, B., Krail, M., & Rohde, C. (2016). Towards a green economy in Germany?
The role of energy efficiency policies. Applied Energy. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.03.063.
Ruppert, W. (2013). Herrschaft über Raum und Zeit—Zur Kulturgeschichte des Automobils. In
M. Keichel (Ed.), Das Elektroauto: Mobilit€ at im Umbruch (pp. 9–44). Wiesbaden: Springer.
Seebach, D., & Mohrbach, E. (2013). Wie k€onnen Herkunftsnachweise zur Differenzierung des
Ökostrommarktes in Deutschland beitragen? Energiewirtschaftliche Tagesfragen, 63(3),
62–64.
UNFCCC—United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2015). Adoption of the
Paris Agreement. Document FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1. Bonn: UNFCCC.
VCD—Verkehrsklub Deutschland. (2015). CO2-Grenzwert—Neue Vorgaben f€ ur Pkw ab 2020.
Accessed July 1, 2016, from https://www.vcd.org/themen/auto-umwelt/co2-grenzwert/
VWK—Volkswagen Kraftwerks GmbH. Lagebericht 2013. Accessed July 1, 2016, from http://
www.volkswagenag.com/content/vwcorp/content/de/investor_relations/annual_general_
meeting/Aktionaersversammlung_2014/Ordentliche_Hauptversammlung/Top7.bin.html/
contentparsys/superteaser/tabs/tab_0/teaserlists/teaserlist_2/teasers/talksandpresentation
Wietschel, M., et al. (2006). Ein Vergleich unterschiedlicher Speichermedien für überschüssigen
Windstrom. Zeitschrift f€ur Energiewirtschaft, 30, 103–114.
Williamson, S. (2013). Energy management strategies for electric and plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles. New York, NY: Springer.
Marc Ringel reads energy policy, energy efficiency and

environmental economics as professor at Nuertingen
Geislingen University, Germany. As a former official with
the Directorate-General for Energy of the European Com-
mission and with the German Federal Ministry of Econom-
ics and Energy, he continues to be deeply involved in the
development and economic assessment of national and
European energy policy frameworks. He supports policy-
oriented research for several national energy action plans
and key strategic EU policy actions. Marc Ringel holds a
master’s degree in economics from Mainz University,
Germany, and Université d’Angers, France. In his PhD
thesis, he analyzed and developed energy policy measures
to combat climate change.
Smart Battery Systems Driving Renewable
Energy Markets
Benjamin Schott and Oliver Koch
Abstract
Many countries across the globe are on the verge of experiencing a second wave
of renewable energy adoption driven by the advent of intelligent energy storage
systems. In this chapter we will explore the drivers of this new phase of a
sustainable energy revolution and the role played by technology and business
models on the basis of smart energy systems.
Keywords
Solar • Energy Storage • Peer-to-Peer • Energy Market • Renewables
1 Storage as Enabler for Continuous Growth of Renewables
Significant research has gone into exploring the reasons for the different rates of
adoption of renewable energy by countries across the globe in the last two decades.
While in some countries photovoltaic (PV) installations are already less than what
they were during their peak several years ago (e.g. Germany, Australia), others are
just in the middle of their first boom in renewable energy (USA). However, the
policy instruments and economic frameworks are very different in each market,
leading to unique nuances in the development of each country. While some
countries used feed-in tariffs to boost PV deployment (Germany, France, UK,
Japan, Australia), others used tax credits to achieve the same goal (USA). Policies
like net metering (Canada, USA, Italy) or tax depreciation (Italy) were also
instruments as well as direct financial support (Croatia) and standards for a renew-
able energy generation portfolio (Australia, China, Republic of Korea, USA). The
B. Schott (*) • O. Koch

sonnen GmbH, Am Riedbach 1, 87499 Wildpoldsried, Germany
e-mail: b.schott@sonnenbatterie.de

260 B. Schott and O. Koch
Fig. 1 Results of customer survey of existing sonnenBatterie owners in 2014/2015 (internal

analysis by sonnen)
timing and choice of policy instruments have led to an environment in which

significant local differences exist between countries when it comes to renewable
energy deployment.
One of the early adopters of a comprehensive renewable energy development
plan was Germany. After a feed-in tariff induced a boom in PV installations from
2005 to 2013, new installations quickly fell to the current level of just over
1000 MW of added capacity per year as the feed-in tariff was reduced to the current
level of approx. EUR 0.12/kWh. While the reduction in incentives proved to have
devastating effects on the German PV market, it also allowed new technologies and
business models to develop. A prime example of such a development was the rapid
introduction and advance of decentralized small-scale energy storage systems.
Grid-connected storage started to make an appearance in the German market
from 2010. At that time, the feed-in tariff was significantly higher than the average
retail rate of electricity, creating an environment where an investment into storage
did not make financial sense. Instead, the early adopters of this technology focused
more on emotional factors: freedom from future price increases, independence from
the utility, and backup in case of power failure were all reasons contributing to the
purchase decisions of early adopters (Fig. 1). However, like the situation with PV
deployment, the market for storage products showed equally diverse characteristics
across the globe. While some countries had a mix of financial support and
incentives (Germany), others offered financial incentives, even though there was
no financial case for storage (California). Simplifying legislation and permitting
processes were another driving factor in some countries when it came to the
deployment of distributed small-scale residential storage. Depending on the policy
framework deployed, storage started to move from an early-adopters phase into the
mainstream market at different speeds, with Japan and Germany at the forefront of
this development.
Smart Battery Systems Driving Renewable Energy Markets 261
As feed-in tariffs started to drop in Germany to their current level and retail
prices for electricity continued to climb to about EUR 0.29/kWh, an additional
component was added to the factors influencing the purchasing decision: return on
investment (ROI). Optimizing self-consumption was no longer just an emotional
decision; it started to make financial sense. With this, the early-adopter phase in
Germany ended and storage started to enter the mainstream. Rather than being an
accessory to a PV installation, storage started to become the driver behind more
renewable energy installations with ca. 50 % of all residential PV systems in
Germany being installed with storage in 2015 (Kairies et al. 2016). With a combi-
nation of financial and emotional factors, storage developed into an enabler of
future growth in residential renewable electricity production.
The technical requirements for those early-generation systems were relatively
straightforward: Optimize self-consumption during the day and make sure that the
batteries are fully charged in the early evening. Relatively simple algorithms were
used in those early systems to control the charge and discharge behaviour of the
storage system to make sure batteries were sufficiently charged to last the individual
consumer through the night. This was what we now characterize as the first wave of
residential energy storage deployment.
Two factors, however, led to a change in the system design of storage systems
towards a more intelligent approach to small-scale energy storage. First, with
increased internationalization of small-scale, decentralized storage, the functional-
ity requirements increased as well. Additional countries meant different additional
business models, which storage systems needed to cater for. In addition to
maximizing self-consumption, companies now developed a software platform
that caters for backup power, time-of-use shifting, or peak shaving. The regulatory
frameworks in each country brought with them additional requirements for the
intelligence of the system.
The second factor driving the development of a more sophisticated approach to
the controls surrounding energy storage was the move from a purely emotional buy
towards a more rational, ROI-focused purchasing decision. While ever decreasing
hardware cost was naturally conducive to a better ROI for the customer, smarter
storage application had the power to further drive down payback periods and
increase the ROI. Examples of this development was the deployment of daily
weather forecast data to optimize charging strategies or the introduction of smart
home ready storage systems by companies like sonnen to increase the level of
autarky. End customers are able to turn on electrical appliances such as a dish-
washer either using their sonnen smartphone app or letting the system automatically
determine when to turn on those devices in order to maximize self-consumption.
This was the second phase of residential energy storage deployment.
While decentralized storage got smarter over time, optimization happened only
on the individual system level. Factors such as grid friendliness were a by-product
rather than the declared goal of any system intelligence developed during this phase
of the introduction of decentralized small-scale storage. What was lacking at this
point were concepts on how to increase the individual and collective utility one
could derive from storage systems by starting to utilize network effects once
decentralized storage had reached a critical mass.
With this we see residential storage enter a new, the third, phase: virtually
connecting decentralized storage systems to create benefits partially outside the
location where the system is being installed.
While the first and second phases have already contributed to the growth of
renewable generation capacity in early-adopter markets, we believe that it will be
the value created by the third phase that will have the power to dramatically change
the way people produce, distribute and consume energy. With this, distributed
energy storage could become the catalyst for a worldwide transformation towards
a carbon-neutral energy economy.
2 Storage as the Missing Piece for Sustainable Renewable

Energy Markets
Connecting assets like energy storage, especially decentralized small-scale systems

installed in private households, and renewable generation in a virtual power plant as
the next phase of technology development will further drive the growth of renew-
able generation in many countries and will be the solution for sustainable renewable
energy markets.
One can observe that markets for energy storage are evolving in those countries
where already a high penetration of renewables in the electricity mix has been
achieved and the energy market is facing the challenge of integrating fluctuating
and volatile sources of energy in the existing energy market design and
infrastructures. In particular, switching from a support programme based on fixed
feed-in tariffs to more price-based mechanisms, for example direct marketing or the
recently introduced new auction mechanisms in Germany, will drive the demand
for flexible management to maximize the value of the renewable feed-in tariff
compared to the investment security of a fixed tariff, which does not incentivize
flexible management. Most types of renewable generation are intermittent, relying
on weather, like solar and wind, and thus cannot be managed in a flexible way.
Today only biogas plants and, with some restrictions, hydropower plants provide
flexible loads to systems. The biggest portion of power generation in future will be
based on solar and wind, which will require flexible management and especially
energy storage as the missing piece to stabilize systems, as many energy studies in
Germany have shown (Buttler 2015). Maximizing or optimizing the value of solar
and wind generation will thus be the main challenge and interest for plant operators
and owners. In Germany, for example, today already almost 20 % of electricity
generation is covered by wind and solar (BMWi 2016).
The reduction or complete phase-out of fixed feed-in tariff schemes can be seen
as a major tipping point in many countries when flexible management will be
introduced by stakeholders in the energy market and is the main reason why new
ways of marketing renewables will be designed and launched. Recent years have
already witnessed a trend in Germany and other countries, like the UK or the
Netherlands, towards new business models trying to find a way to optimize the
marketing of renewable energy.
These new business models can be clustered into the following use cases and
will be described subsequently:
1. Grid-friendly renewable energy usage on site,

2. Optimized renewable energy trading,
3. Renewable energy retail.
Grid-friendly renewable energy usage on site This use case is the typical
so-called prosumer case, as described in Sect. 13.1 of this chapter. Usually the
load profile of a typical household in Germany will allow for using 20–30 % of
generated solar energy directly (Weniger et al. 2015). For commercial customers
this figure can be significantly higher as the load profile shows high consumption
during the day and thus matches with solar generation directly. Adding a storage
system to the solar system will increase this value for a private household to
60–80 % depending on the size of the solar system and the size of the storage
system as well as the consumption pattern (Weniger et al. 2015). In combination
with electric heating, for example, solar self-consumption can reach up to almost
100 %. In many cases the household will still consume 25–30 % from the grid,
while in some cases the combination of storage with micro CHP on site could allow
customers to minimize grid consumption. A storage system allows end users to
reduce the electricity bill by using more of their own generated solar energy. As
several analyses show, the shrinking costs of solar and batteries will drive this use
case to reach the mass market very soon (Franz 2016; Farid et al. 2016). Figure 2
shows the typical profile of a prosumer site in Germany.
An important building block of this use case is intelligent energy management,
which allows one to schedule the discharging/charging of batteries taking into
account solar and load forecasts as well as other generation assets and external
requirements. For example, in Germany one regulation says that solar systems not
equipped with a decentralized relay controlled by the distribution system operator
(DSO) must limit solar feed-in to 70 % of the nominal power of the system, and in
combination with storage—if the storage system is funded by the KfW subsidy
program (KfW 2016)—even a 50 % limit is required. This is done to reduce the
solar peak to relieve the grid but will lead to a loss of produced solar energy of up to
10 % per year as a result of the curtailment (Weniger et al. 2016). A storage system
equipped with an intelligent energy manager as well as a load and production
forecaster is able to avoid curtailment through delayed charging (Figs. 2 and 3)
(Weniger et al. 2016).
This approach to intelligent peak shaving optimizes the use of renewable energy
for end users and helps them maximize the value of their solar usage on site while at
the same time helping to relieve the burden places on the grid. Several studies have
shown the positive impact of smart battery systems for the integration of
renewables. For example, an analysis by HTW Berlin determined that the installed
capacity of solar in Germany could be doubled with no impact on grid infrastructure
10k
8k
Intelligent Peak Shaving
PV Feed-in Limit
6k
4k
2k
0k
03:00 06:00 09:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00
Battery Charge Load
Solar Generation Battery Discharge
Fig. 2 Data monitoring of typical solar þ storage system in private household with electric
heating and intelligent peak shaving (sonnen GmbH)
Fig. 3 Monitoring of intelligent energy management of sonnenBatterie including forecast. (a)

Normal charging—production below limit (red line); (b) delayed charging—shaving production
peak around noon; (c) forecast next 3 days (sonnen GmbH)
owing to peak shaving (Weniger et al. 2015). Furthermore, a study by Prognos

showed that peak shaving- and forecast-based control of batteries would make it
possible to avoid EUR 120 million in grid upgrades and investments in Southern
Germany (Krampe and Peter 2015).
Optimized renewable energy trading Efficient and profitable trading of renew-

able energy generation will be one of the major challenges facing plant operators
and energy trading companies in the future energy system. Franz (2015) showed
that decentralized energy trading will create tremendous value in Germany’s energy
markets. Solar and wind are intermittent weather-dependent resources. Although
excellent forecasting helps to minimize trading risks, optimizing profits is only
possible under a regime of flexible management that makes it possible to hedge low
and high price periods. One option to bring flexibility to the management of solar
and wind assets is the installation of an energy storage system on site. This would
make it possible to store energy when spot market prices are low and sell it on a
delayed basis to the market when prices are high again to maximize profitability.
One example of this is the solar park installed by Belectric in Alt-Daber, Germany,
a 2 MW lead acid storage system that is the first project of its kind in Europe
(Petersen 2014). Typically real-time trading of renewable energy is only attractive
to traders for generation assets >100 kW or even >500 kW [cf. data of direct
marketing companies in Franz (2015)]. This is due to the fact that the cost efficiency
for trading small-scale assets is very poor for most trading companies because of
the high operational costs, transaction costs and additional hardware costs per
kilowatt. Thus, today this business model has clear limitations in terms of the
size of assets, and the typical installation of storage systems at renewable sites for
the primary use of optimizing energy trading is >100 kW to the megawatt scale.
Minimizing these integration costs for small-scale assets is a major challenge. The
example of the sonnenCommunity1 in Germany shows that the combination of
small-scale solar generation with smart storage systems on site, installed for the
purpose of solar self-consumption, enables an automated and standardized low-cost
process for integration in direct marketing.
Renewable energy retailing Another innovative way to market renewables is by

creating new energy tariffs for energy retailing. This means that a specific segment
of energy consumers, whether private households or commercial customers, is
interested in purchasing green electricity from a region or from known suppliers
based on transparency of origin. Energy retail companies offer certificates of origin
for the power they purchase or use platforms displaying the producing power plants
to create transparency for their customers. Examples include the sonnenCommunity
by sonnen GmbH in Germany, Vandebron2 in the Netherlands, and Open Utility3 in
the UK. Consumers are willing to pay a premium for this transparency for several
reasons. Green electricity supply of eligible sources at any given time, though, is
only possible with a massive oversupply of renewables in the supplier’s portfolio,
or storage can be used to manage the demand side using the battery as a flexible
buffer for excess renewable electricity. The combination of storage-optimized
demand-side management with storage installed on the site where the renewable
energy is generated to optimize the supply side makes a virtual power plant. This
1
www.sonnenbatterie.de/sonnencommunity (Accessed 25 June 2016).
2
www.vandebron.nl (Accessed 25 June 2016).
3
www.openutility.uk (Accessed 25 June 2016).
Fig. 4 sonnenCommunity as example of a new peer-to-peer energy marketplace (sonnen GmbH).

The image shows an example of an end customer live platform with the display of energy
providers within the peer-to-peer network, which shows the participants with photos, descriptions
and their location on a map
makes storage the game changer that allows for managing and balancing supply and
demand to optimize the whole portfolio. This has already been started by sonnen
through the set-up of the sonnenCommunity, were a portfolio of solar and other
renewable assets like biogas and wind, combined with the use of flexible storage
units, is managed so as to unsure the demand of Community members is met at any
time. This fleet forms the basis of the Community and is combined with a suitable
portfolio of generation assets managed through virtual power plant software. The
sonnenCommunity thus only manages assets owned by private homeowners or
others. This model can be compared to the idea of Uber, AirBnB and others
where the platform manages assets without owning them. New models like an
“AirBnB of Energy” or a peer-to-peer energy platform can change dramatically the
way energy is managed in the future. Prosumers can now be energy suppliers
feeding their solar exports into the sonnenCommunity and provide it to others
peer to peer (Fig. 4).
3 Outlook: Energy Storage Combining Multiple Use Cases

Will Drive New Energy Markets Based on Renewables
In all the different models described in this chapter as new ways of marketing
renewables, the combination of renewable energy generation with (aggregated)
storage can be seen as the driver for new business models. Looking at the market
for energy storage today there are examples of each use case described earlier.
Although in most cases a primary use case as the main driver for renewable or
storage investment can be identified, the profitability that will make it possible to
bring these concepts to the mass market will be driven by a combination and
optimization of different use cases.
Although already today several gigawatt-scale utility storage projects are in
operation, under construction, or being planned, most of them are aimed at the
primary use case to help stabilize the grid through frequency and voltage control;
only a few are on the site of renewable power plants. According to the US
Department of Energy’s (DOE) Energy Storage Database, 1.35 GW has been
installed since 2012, most of it thermal storage (DOE 2016). In Germany alone
150 MW of storage systems will be installed by the end of 2016 to be offered
mainly in the primary frequency control market (Franz 2016). As the market for
primary frequency control is under pressure as a result of these new capacities,
prices are already expected to decrease (ibid.). Thus storage operators like
WEMAG in Germany are already looking into combining use cases to maximize
value and stabilize the investment case (WEMAG 2016).
On the other hand, solar self-consumption is a mega trend in many countries at
the residential and small commercial levels (Farid et al. 2016). Thousands of small-
scale storage systems have been deployed in recent years and are expected to boom
in the coming decades, as described in Sect. 13.1. Already today aggregators are
trying to pool storage assets to build up a virtual power plant with several
megawatts of capacity for the energy and grid service markets. This combination
of use cases makes it possible to achieve a maximum utilization rate and value
maximization through a second dispatch. On the one hand this is the combination of
the primary use case of prosumers with energy trading and energy retailing. The
combination of renewable energy marketing and storage as a demand response
resource for grid services will allow companies to maximize value for investors.
Especially behind-the-meter, prosumer storage allows for a combination of a broad
variety of applications. Being producer, consumer and storage operator at the same
time makes it possible to compound several different levels of value for investors.
At the same time, aggregated behind-the-meter storage at the prosumer level can
also be used for energy trading to hedge or to provide any needed grid support
services for the grid.
For example, the Rocky Mountain Institute has assessed how combinations of
different use cases can stack this value (Farid et al. 2016). As shown by Fitzgerald
et al. (2015) and by Sterner et al. (2015), for the German market, energy storage can
be used for a variety of grid services. Storage units can, for example, be dispatched
at times when they are not being used by prosumers for frequency control, with the
owner receiving a capacity and utilization payment, or they can be used for intraday
trading for arbitrage, much like in the case of pumped hydro storage. The results of
Fitzgerald et al. (2015) especially show that behind-the-meter storage systems give
the broadest variety of use cases and offer the greatest opportunities for stacking
value through multiple applications. Stacking value will be important for bringing
storage to the mass market. This variety of possible use cases gives prosumers with
storage assets a specific role in new approaches to marketing renewable generation.
The primary use case is strong enough to attract investors, while additional
applications increase the value and accelerate the time to market of new models.
Thus prosumers are already investing in the required infrastructure to create new
markets for renewables at a much lower interest rate. The flexibility to combine or
optimize all use cases for customers is the key for models like the
sonnenCommunity as the regulatory environment in many countries is still under
development and can change in many directions. Thus also today many regulatory
barriers exist to full deployment of multi-use cases, for example due to system fees
that must be paid for behind-the-meter storage or a lack of smart meter technology
roll-out.
References
BMWi. (2016). Erneuerbare Energien auf einen Blick. German Federal Ministry for Economic
Affairs and Energy. Accessed June 25, 2016, from http://www.bmwi.de/DE/Themen/Energie/
Erneuerbare-Energien/erneuerbare-energien-auf-einen-blick.html
Buttler, A. (2015, Januar). Kampf der Studien. VDI Vortragsreihe Kraftwerkstechnik.
DOE. (2016). DOE Global Energy Storage Database. Department of Energy. Accessed June
25, 2016, from http://www.energystorageexchange.org/projects/data_visualization
Farid, A., Anderson, N., Rosser, J., & Armstrong, C. (2016, February). Battery adoption at the
tipping point. Berenberg Thematics.
Fitzgerald, G., Mandel, J., Morris J., & Touati, H. (2015, September). The economics of battery
energy storage: How multi-use, customer-sited batteries deliver the most services and value to
customers and the grid. Rocky Mountain Institute. Accessed June 25, 2016, from http://www.
rmi.org/electricity_battery_value
Franz, S. (2015). Fit für die nächste Phase der Energiewende: Durch Speicher und Digitalisierung
erfolgreiche Geschäftsmodelle finden. Energiewirtschaftliche Tagesfragen, 65(11), 43–45.
Franz, S. (2016, Januar). Neue Gesch€ aftsmodelle in dezentralen und digitalisierten Stromm€arkten.
Berlin: Studie Energy Business Lab des des Büro F.
Kairies, K., et al. (2016). Wissenschaftliches Mess- und Evaluierungsprogramm
Solarstromspeicher. Jahresbericht 2016. Institut für Stromrichtertechnik und Elektrische
Antriebe RWTH Aachen. www.speichermonitoring.de, Aachen 2016.
KfW. (2016). KfW-Programm Erneuerbare Energien “Speicher”—275 Kredit. Kreditanstalt für
Wiederaufbau. Accessed June 25, 2016, from https://www.kfw.de/inlandsfoerderung/
Unternehmen/Energie-Umwelt/F%C3%B6rderprodukte/Erneuerbare-Energien-%E2%80%
93-Speicher-%28275%29/
Krampe, L., & Peter, F. (2015). Auswirkungen von Batteriespeichern auf das Stromsystem in
S€uddeutschland. Studie von prognos im Auftrag der sonnen GmbH, Berlin. Accessed June 25,
2016, from https://www.sonnenbatterie.de/de/neue-prognos-kurzstudie-nutzen-von-
heimspeichern-fuer-geringeren-netzausbau-bislang-vollkommen
Petersen N. H. (2014). Belectric startet Stromspeicher am Solarpark Alt Daber. Accessed June 25, 2016,
from http://www.photovoltaik.eu/Archiv/Meldungsarchiv/Belectric-startet-Stromspeicher-am-
Solarpark-Alt-Daber,QUlEPTYyMDk4OCZNSUQ9MTEwOTQ5JlBBR0U9MQ.html
Sterner, M., Eckert, F., Thema, M., & Bauer, F. (2015). Der positive Beitrag dezentraler
Batteriespeicher f€ ur eine stabile Stromversorgung. Forschungsstelle Energienetze und
Energiespeicher (FENES) OTH Regensburg, Kurzstudie im Auftrag von BEE e.V. und
Hannover Messe, Regensburg, Berlin, Hannover.
WEMAG. (2016). Eine Batterie f€ ur alle F€alle: WEMAG-Speicher zeigt Schwarzstartf€ ahigkeit.
WEMAG Press release. Accessed June 25, 2016, from https://www.wemag.com/ueber_die_
wemag/presse/pressemeldungen/2016/20160127_Batteriespeicher_Schwarzstartfaehigeit
Weniger, J., Bergner, J., Tjaden, T., & Quaschning, V. (2015). Dezentrale Solarstromspeicher f€
ur
die Energiewende. Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft Berlin, BWV Berliner
Wissenschafts-Verlag GmbH, Berlin. Accessed June 25, 2016, from http://pvspeicher.htw-
berlin.de
Weniger, J., Bergner, J., Tjaden, T., & Quaschning, V. (2016). Effekte der 50%-
Einspeisebegrenzung des KfW-F€ orderprogramms f€ ur Photovoltaik-Speichersysteme.
Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft Berlin, Berlin. Accessed June 25, 2016, from http://
pvspeicher.htw-berlin.de
Benjamin Schott graduated in business and chemistry at the

University of Ulm in 2007. He obtained his Ph.D. in Econom-
ics in 2016 based on an analysis of policy-driven market entry
strategies of electric vehicles in Germany. During his profes-
sional career he held several positions in business develop-
ment, consulting and research, for example as new business
development manager in the chemical industry or as project
manager at the battery research and consulting institute
Zentrum für Sonnenenergie- und Wasserstoff-Forschung in
Ulm. Since 2014 he has been leading the Business Innovation
Team at sonnen GmbH, one of the pioneers in the battery
storage market with a broad product range.
Oliver Koch is Managing Director and Chief Operating

Officer (COO) of sonnen GmbH. He joined the company
in 2014. Before joining sonnen, he was COO at the US
financial services and solar company Paramount Equity
which was successfully sold to SolarCity in late 2013.
Prior to his engagement in the solar industry, he held various
management positions in international subsidiaries of the
Bertelsmann Group in Asia, North America and Australia.
Oliver Koch holds a Master’s Degree in Sustainability Lead-
ership from the University of Cambridge. In addition, he is
an alumnus of Harvard Business School’s AMP program
and holds a Master of Business Administration degree from
the University of Münster.
Part III
Marketing of Renewables in Regional Markets
Exploiting the Economic Opportunities
of the Energy Transition
Claudia Kemfert
Abstract
This paper provides a concise view on the state of the German Energiewende
(energy transition), converting energy generation from fossil fuels to renewable
generation. It discusses various aspects of the regulatory framework, including
the phasing out of coal-fired power plants, emission trading, the new tender
process for investments in subsidized renewable power generation, and other
aspects. It also discusses employment effects and other impacts on German
society at large.
Keywords
German Energiewende (energy transition) • Nuclear phase-out • Energy
efficiency • Regulatory framework • Tender process
1 Introduction
In times of falling oil prices, fears of deflation, and disputes over European Union
(EU) austerity policies, a major project, Germany’s so-called energy transition
(Energiewende), is being completely overlooked. The goal of the energy transition
is to increase the share of electricity produced from renewable energy sources from
almost 30 % today to 80 % by 2050. The nuclear power plants that are still in
operation, mainly in Southern Germany, will be decommissioned by 2022. The
energy transition also aims to improve energy efficiency in the construction sector
and to make mobility more sustainable. As a result, the energy transition should
result in a permanently sustainable energy supply.
C. Kemfert (*)
German Institute for Economic Research (DIW), Berlin, Germany
Hertie School of Governance, Berlin, Germany
e-mail: sekretariat-evu@diw.de

274 C. Kemfert
In 2010, the German government initiated a new Energy Concept for a substan-
tial transition of energy use to reduce carbon emissions in all these sectors simulta-
neously, which adjusts previous strategies and climate policy packages. An
additional policy push came after the nuclear catastrophe in Fukushima. A societal
and political consensus in Germany emerged, which determined that the risks of
nuclear energy and the burden of final storage of nuclear waste were too high.
Although in 2010 nuclear power accounted for more than 22 % of Germany’s
electricity, in July 2011 (3 months after the Fukushima disaster) the German
government decided to completely phase out nuclear power generation in Germany
within 10 years. Since that time the nuclear phase-out has been an integral part of
the German energy transition – a transition to carbon neutral energy supply.
The concept aims at ensuring “a reliable, economically viable and environmen-
tally sound energy supply”—the so-called energy policy triangle—and is connected
to the following targets (see also Table 1):
• Complete nuclear phase-out by 2022;

• Significant increase in energy efficiency in all sectors, resulting in significant
energy savings;
• Substantial increase in the share of renewable energies in satisfying final energy
consumption;
• Reduction of CO2 emissions by 40 % by 2020 compared to 1990.
The power generation structures will undergo substantial transformation, moving

toward more decentralized energy supply structures in which renewable energy
sources, combined heat and power systems, and smart grids and storage solutions
will all be interconnected. This will also require effective load management capable
of efficiently coordinating supply and demand. All these developments will generate
numerous innovations, opening up future markets through investment.
The task of the energy transition is therefore to restructure the current power
system with a view to more decentralization, flexibility, and dynamism, and this
will include smart grids, optimum control of supply and demand, and more storage
in the medium term. There is currently a huge excess in power supply capacity from
old coal and nuclear power plants and, at times, from renewable energy sources.
These excess capacities push prices downward on the electricity stock exchange
market, meaning Germany is exporting cheaper electricity. This oversupply, in
combination with low power market prices, has consequences: the profitability of
conventional power plants is diminished. For this reason and because CO2 prices
are at historically low levels, lignite-fired power plants are still economically
viable. Consequently, the use of lignite-fired power plants has risen and, at the
same time, so too have greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, the business model
and the innovative and flexible gas power plants and pumped storage power plants
required for the energy transition are not viable owing to the massive excess power
supply and associated low electricity prices on the energy exchange market.
If the German government is serious about achieving its climate targets, building
energy, mobility, and the power sector in particular must make a substantial
Exploiting the Economic Opportunities of the Energy Transition 275
Table 1 Ambitious targets versus status quo (BMWi 2015; L€

oschel et al. 2015)
2013 2020 2030 2040 2050
Greenhouse gas emissions 22.6 % 40 % 55 % 70 % 80 %–
(compared with 1990) 95 %
Renewable energy
Share in gross final energy 12.0 % 18 % 30 % 45 % 60 %
consumption
Share in gross electricity 25.3 % 35 % 50 % 65 % 80 %
consumption
Energy efficiency
Primary energy consumption 4.0 % 20 % – – 50 %
(compared with 2008)
Energy productivity (final energy 0.26 % 2.1 % p.a.
consumption) p.a. (average
2008–2013)
Gross electricity consumption 3.3 % 10 % – – 25 %
(compared with 2008)
Thermal refurbishment of ~1 % p.a. (2012 2 % p.a.
residential buildings value)
Final energy consumption of 1.0 % 10 % – – 40 %
transport sector (compared with
2005)
contribution to emission reductions. This can happen only if old and inefficient
coal-fired power plants are replaced with renewable energy sources, combined heat
and power systems, and gas power plants. Outdated, inefficient coal-fired power
plants not only produce an enormous power supply surplus but also generate too
many greenhouse gases. Moreover, they are too inflexible in combination with
renewable energy sources. Despite claims to the contrary by proponents of coal-
fired power plants, they are not suitable as a bridging technology for a sustainable
energy transition. Gas power plants are much better suited for that because they are
more flexible than coal-fired power plants and generate fewer harmful greenhouse
gases. However, these new gas power plants, which are efficient and therefore
important for the energy transition, are increasingly standing idle because they are
not profitable.
Instead of paying new subsidies for fossil-based energy sources, the electricity
market should be restructured. Only a better market clearance will achieve the
scarcity prices needed on the electricity market to improve the situation again. If the
oldest, most inefficient coal-fired power stations were to disappear from the market,
this could pay a double dividend: the market would be transformed, electricity
prices on the energy exchange market and the profitability of the remaining power
plants would rise again, and climate targets could be met.
The current EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) is a complete failure of
effective climate policy: emissions trading still suffers from too high allocations
of emission allowances in the early years and from the economic slump, static
emission reduction targets, and an increase in additional certificates from abroad.
276 C. Kemfert
Even if the EU ETS were to be repaired as envisaged by the EU and, fortunately,

supported by Germany, the CO2 price would not rise to a sufficiently high level for
the coal surplus on the German electricity market to disappear. These measures are
likely to have little impact on the already very low CO2 price, and as a result, it is
expected to remain low. Instead of 7 euros per ton of CO2, between 40 and 60 euros
per ton of CO2 would be required to provide sufficient financial incentives for the
use of gas power plants instead of coal-fired plants. Consequently, there is a lack of
suitable market signals for an increase in the price of CO2.
2 Renewable Energy Sources—Problem Solver

and Economic Factor
Renewables are the building block of a sustainable energy supply: they are climate
friendly, ensure supply security as a domestic energy producer, and can also
increase competitiveness as a stimulus for growth and jobs. Renewable energy
sources are of interest for all energy sectors: for power and heat generation and as
alternative fuels in the transport sector. The renewables industry promotes expan-
sion and innovation and has become a growth industry like no other sector in recent
years (Blazejczak et al. 2013; OECD 2010). The majority of employees work in the
wind energy and biomass power generation fields, followed by the solar and
geothermal industries. In the course of the political process of phasing out nuclear
energy and reducing the high CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants, renew-
able energy sources can also make an outstanding contribution to combating
climate change and to improving the security of supply by reducing our dependence
on imports. Because renewables are usually used for decentralized energy supply
by means of wind turbines, biomass plants, and combined heat and power, the use
of renewable energy sources increases the security of supply. There are plenty of
opportunities for expanding renewables. Depending on how global demand for
renewable energy sources develops, the export potential can be enhanced
considerably.
3 New Market Integration of Renewables—More Problems

Than Solutions
A key objective of the German government is to develop renewable energy sources

at the lowest cost. In addition, the pace at which renewable energy sources grow
should be kept within the expansion corridor. To date, renewables have been
supported by fixed feed-in tariffs. Since the costs of renewable energy sources
have plummeted, the intention is now to switch to a tender system—also in
accordance with EU regulations. Tenders are to be introduced for both onshore
and offshore wind turbines and for solar plants with an output of at least 1 MW,
thereby making it possible to calculate and specify tariffs and a sliding market
premium. This approach should allow 80 % of all renewable energy systems to be

determined through competitive tenders in the future.
The main objectives of the tender process are therefore reduced costs through
lower subsidy rates, better compliance with the expansion corridor, limited influ-
ence of interest groups, and greater acceptance of the expansion of renewable
energy generation and, consequently, the energy transition. In theory, tenders
provide various options for combining competitive pricing with elements of con-
trol. They would, for example, allow system compliancy, that is, how renewables
can relieve pressure on the energy system, or regional aspects, to be included in the
award criteria.
As tempting as it might sound to use the tender process to automatically achieve
low costs and compliance with the expansion corridor, its successful implementa-
tion entails difficulties. The devil is in the details. Essentially, determining
subsidies competitively through tendering can work only if there is adequate
competition. There must be enough investors compared to the amount of land
available to be used for renewable energy sources. To encourage enough bidders,
the process must be comprehensible and the preliminary work and securities that
bidders are expected to provide must be affordable. The need to encourage the
highest possible number of bidders to participate forces regulators to make the
tender regulations attractive to bidders.
Against this background, it is worth taking a look at the second key objective of
the tender: better compliance with expansion objectives. This is to be achieved by
putting potential renewable energy expansion out to tender in several processes
each year. Experience from other countries shows that low requirements with
regard to preparatory work and securities and low financial penalties for noncom-
pliance lead to a high proportion of bidders failing to make use of the permission
they have been granted to build plants (Grau 2014; GIZ and Ecofys 2013). This
would mean that the expansion targets will not be met. Securities and preparatory
work are thus urgently required in order for development objectives to actually be
achieved (Deutscher Bundestag 2016). They do, however, increase the cost of
participation and inevitably lead to a low number of participants. Little competition
in the tenders also means higher funding rates, that is, higher costs. In addition, if
potential investors are willing or able to bear risks associated with the tenders to
varying degrees, this will not lead to an efficient allocation of licenses because
efficient bidders may decline to participate from the outset.
Consequently, there is a clear conflict of interest between the two key objectives
of introducing a tender process: automatically generating low subsidy rates, and
thus lower costs, and meeting expansion targets. Hence, it is by no means certain
that costs will fall and that expansion objectives will be achieved more efficiently.
Financial risks are presumably factored in, and low participation due to high
barriers to entry could cause prices to rise. Lowering qualification requirements
and penalties, on the other hand, involves the risk that not all approved plants will
actually be constructed and planned expansion corridors will be missed by a
considerable margin.
278 C. Kemfert
The additional objective of addressing quality aspects such as demand-driven

electricity generation, regional criteria, or maintaining the variety of participants
would seem very difficult to implement in this context. In particular, small investors
and citizen energy cooperatives that could have stimulated the market to date could
lose out in the new system. This is confirmed by the first experiences with tender
schemes of photovoltaic open area tenders: first tender rounds have shown that most
often big bidders and almost no cooperatives participate. Although quite high
competition and low prices might have been reached, the actual realization rate
remains unknown. First experiences with tendering schemes in Germany do not
allow for any conclusion to be drawn but provide first insights into the potential
challenges (Klessmann et al. 2015).
Although tenders may increase transparency and identify the most attractive
provider among participating bidders, there are, nevertheless, many disadvantages:
there is a great deal of red tape involved, there are conflicts between the objectives
to be met by the tenders, and strategic behavior in combination with low participa-
tion can be a problem and push up bid prices. Bidder transaction costs will rise and
are probably not affordable for all stakeholders. There are also bidding risks such as
time and effort spent carrying out preparatory work without any certainty of
ultimately being awarded the contract.
Tenders do not automatically lead to lower costs, and there is a high risk of not
meeting renewable energy expansion targets (Held et al. 2014). In addition, there is
a danger that the variety of participants, and therefore acceptance of the energy
transition, will diminish. Tenders can bring benefits. However, many challenges
remain in their specific design.
4 An Energy Transition “Made in Germany”
The “made in Germany” energy transition is an important contribution to global

climate policy. However, Germany is not at the top of the energy transition rankings
but is only mid-tier behind countries such as Sweden, Brazil, and Italy (Fig. 1).1
However, the German energy transition has both upsides and downsides. On the
one hand, Germany has managed to considerably reduce emissions in the power
sector through its expansion of renewables. On the other hand, Germany still uses
too much coal for power generation (Kemfert 2013). This means that Germany’s
self-imposed climate target of a 40 % reduction by 2020 will most likely not be
achievable. There are no binding climate policy measures, and emissions trading in
1
See Fraunhofer ISE, The Energy Transformation Index https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/
downloads/pdf-files/aktuelles/ise-ises-eti.pdf (2015), and IEA (2014). The Climate Change Per-
formance Index also sees Germany only in the middle tier on issues such as emissions develop-
ment, expansion of renewables, improving energy efficiency, and policy measures (Burck et al.
2016). In contrast, other studies like the Global Green Economy Index (GGEI) see Germany
alongside Sweden in first place on global green markets (Tamanini et al. 2014). A study by the
Handelsblatt Research Institute sees Germany in eighth place out of 24 countries.
ETI Ranking of Selected Countries

ETI Growth between 1990 and 2013
Sweden 53% 35
23
Brasil* 45% 44
30
Italy 96% 37
19
Spain 121% 35
16
Japan 44% 25
17
Great Britian 175% 30
11
Germany 186% 30
11
Australia 89% 21 ETI 2013
11
France 73% 26 ( * ETI 2012 ** ETI
15
EU-27** 108% 25 2011)
12
Canada 60% 22 ETI 1990
14
India 23% 30
24
Mexico 155% 28
11
USA 116% 19
9
South Africa* 95% 16
8
China* 26% 16
13
South Korea 99% 14
7
Fig. 1 Energy Transformation Index (ETI) ranking of selected countries: ETI growth between
1990 and 2013 (Fraunhofer ISE 2014). The Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems
(ISE) developed the Energy Transformation Index (ETI) in 2013. It measures the progress of
countries toward an energy transition: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/presse-und-medien/
presseinformationen/presseinformationen-2013/energy-transformation-index-eti
its current form is ineffective because the CO2 price is far too low. Therefore,
accompanying measures are required, such as a carbon tax and a structured fossil-
fuel phase-out. In addition, Germany has not done enough in the area of sustainable
mobility; the recent VW diesel scandal is a stark example of environmental
protection that is made in Germany. If Germany is to be celebrated as a model
for climate policy and Chancellor Merkel wants to be known as the “climate
chancellor,” the carbon problem must be solved, and we also need to do more to
save energy and restore our credibility, particularly in the area of sustainable
mobility. Consequently, policymakers are now being called upon to implement
measures that combat climate change more effectively but that run counter to
economic interests. Nevertheless, the German energy transition policy has initiated
a global upheaval, and perhaps Germany can learn more from other countries when
it comes to issues like the fossil-fuel phase-out or properly measuring exhaust
emissions.
The German energy transition is nevertheless setting an important precedent:
thanks to investments from Germany, the rising demand and associated economies
of scale have caused the costs of renewable energy sources to fall massively
worldwide. For the first time, more global investment is being made in renewables
than in fossil fuels.
280 C. Kemfert
More and more countries will follow the German example and prefer to invest in
renewable energy sources than fossil fuels or atomic energy: more opportunities,
fewer risks.
5 Conclusion
The energy system must become more flexible, more intelligent, and more holistic.
This will require smart grids and, in the medium term, more storage than fossil fuels
and outdated structures. Germany has made a substantial contribution to the success
of the global energy transition, with more investment now being made in
renewables than fossil fuels. By promoting renewable energy sources, Germany
has contributed to a situation in which the costs of renewable energy sources
continue to fall and in which renewables are thus becoming more competitive.
Germany should not jeopardize these successes. Putting the promotion of renew-
able energy sources out to tender comes with huge risks and threatens to stifle the
energy transition.
The energy transition provides enormous economic opportunities. Today five
times as many people work in the renewables sector in Germany as in the coal
industry (Fig. 2) (Kemfert et al. 2015). If we add energy efficiency in general to the
field of renewable energy sources, the number of employees rises even more. It is of
the utmost importance to continue to implement the structural changes needed to
convert the energy supply to renewables and greater energy efficiency and to
monitor them in the coming decades. This is the only way Germany can continue
to be the role model for a sustainable global energy transition in the future.
450000
400000
350000
300000
Renewable Energy
250000
Hard Coal Mining
200000
Lignite Power Plants
150000 Lignite Mining
100000
50000
0
1998 2002 2004 2008 2010 2013
Fig. 2 Employment in coal and renewable energy sector (Ulrich and Lehr 2014; Statista 2016;
Kohlenstatistik 2015)
References
Blazejczak, J., Diekmann, J., Edler, D., Kemfert, C., Neuhoff, K., & Schill, W.-P. (2013). Energy
transition calls for high investment. DIW Economic Bulletin, 9, p. 11.
BMWi. (2015). Vierter Monitoring-Bericht “Energie der Zukunft”.
Burck, J., Marten, F., & Bals, C. Climate Change Performance Index 2016. Accessed July
17, 2016, from https://germanwatch.org/en/download/13626.pdf
Deutscher Bundestag. (2016). Ausschreibungsbericht nach § 99 des Erneuerbare-Energien-
Gesetzes. Drucksache 18/7287. Accessed July 17, 2016, from http://dip21.bundestag.de/
dip21/btd/18/072/1807287.pdf
Fraunhofer ISE. (2014). Energy Transformation Index 2013 Freiburg 2014. Accessed July
17, 2016, from https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/downloads/pdf-files/aktuelles/ise-ises-eti.pdf
GIZ and Ecofys. (2013). Lessons for the tendering system for renewable electricity in South Africa
from international experience in Brazil. Morocco and Peru, Berlin. Accessed July 17, 2016,
from http://www.ecofys.com/files/files/ecofys-giz-2013-international-experience-res-tender
ing.pdf
Grau, T. (2014). Comparison of feed-in tariffs and tenders to remunerate solar power generation.
DIW Discussion paper 1363. Accessed July 17, 2016, from https://www.diw.de/documents/
publikationen/73/diw_01.c.437464.de/dp1363.pdf
Held, A., Ragwitz, M., Gephart, M., De Visser, E., & Klessmann, C. (2014). Design features of
support schemes for renewable electricity, Utrecht.
IEA. (2014). International Energy Agency (2014): Key World Energy Statistics 2014, country
ranking, energy consumption, CO2-emissions: Paris.
Kemfert, C. (2013). Battle about electricity, myths, power and monopolies. Hamburg: Murmann.
Kemfert, C., Opitz, P., Traber, T., & Handrich, L. (2015). Deep decarbonization in Germany a
macro-analysis of economic and political challenges of the ‘Energiewende’ (Energy Transi-
tion). DIW Berlin Politikberatung Kompakt 93/2015.
Klessmann, C., Tiedemann, S., Wigand, F., Tobias Kelm, T., Winkler, J., Ragwitz, M., et al.
(2015). Ausschreibungen f€ ur PV-Freifl€
achenanlagen Auswertung der ersten zwei Runden,
Berlin. Accessed July 17, 2016, from https://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/EE/Redaktion/
DE/Downloads/ausschreibungen-pv-freiflaechanlagen-auswertung-erste-zwei-runden.pdf?__
blob¼publicationFile&v¼3
Kohlenstatistik. (2015). Statistik der Kohlenwirtschaft e.V. (2015) Daten€
ubersichten zu Steinkohle
und Braunkohle in Deutschland 2014. Accessed July 17, 2016, from http://www.
kohlenstatistik.de/3-0-Uebersichten.html
oschel, A., Erdmann, G., Staiß, F., & Ziesing, H.-J. (2015). Expertenkommission zum
L€
Monitoring-Prozess “Energie der Zukunft”. Stellungnahme zum vierten Monitoring-Bericht
der Bundesregierung f€ ur das Berichtsjahr 2014. Accessed July 17, 2016, from https://www.
bmwi.de/BMWi/Redaktion/PDF/M-O/monitoringbericht-energie-der-zukunft-stellungnahme-
2014,property¼pdf,bereich¼bmwi2012,sprache¼de,rwb¼true.pdf
OECD. (2010). Transition to a low-carbon economy: Public goals and corporate practices.
OECD. doi:10.1787/9789264090231-en. Accessed 17 July 2016.
Statista. (2016). Erneuerbare Energie seit 1998. Accessed July 17, 2016, from http://de.statista.
com/statistik/daten/studie/156645/umfrage/anzahl-der-beschaeftigten-in-der-erneuerbare-
energien-branche-seit-1998/
Tamanini, J., Bassi, A., Hoffman, C., & Valenciano, J. (2014). Green Economy Index GGEI 2014
Strategic Review 2014, Washington, New York. Accessed July 17, 2016, from http://
dualcitizeninc.com/GGEI-Report2014.pdf
Ulrich, P., & Lehr, U. (2014). Erneuerbar besch€ aftigt in den Bundesl€ andern: Bericht
zuraktualisierten Absch€ atzung der Bruttobesch€ aftigung 2013 in den Bundesl€ andern.
Osnabrück: GWS mbH.
282 C. Kemfert
Claudia Kemfert has been professor of energy economics

and sustainability at Berlin’s Hertie School of Governance
since 2009 and head of the Department of Energy, Trans-
portation, Environment at the German Institute of Economic
Research (DIW Berlin) since April 2004. Her research
activities concentrate on the evaluation of climate and
energy policy strategies. In 2016 Claudia Kemfert was
appointed by the Federal Ministry for the Environment,
Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety as a
member of the German Advisory Council on the Environ-
ment. She advised European Union president José Manuel
Barroso in a High-Level Group on Energy and Climate. In
2006, Claudia Kemfert was named a top German scientist by
the Helmholtz and Leibniz Association, a German research foundation. In 2011 she was awarded
the Urania Medaille as well as the B.A.U.M. environmental award for best science. In 2013, she
published her book The Battle about Electricity in which she describes the myths of the energy
debate.
Building a Renewables-Driven Power
System. Successes and Challenges
in Germany
Patrick Graichen, Christian Redl, and Markus Steigenberger
Abstract
The German energy transition (Energiewende) is a long-term energy and climate
strategy aimed at a low-carbon-energy system based on renewable energy and
energy efficiency. The focus of the Energiewende so far has been on the power
sector, especially the deployment of renewables. Wind energy and solar
photovoltaics (PVs) form the backbone of the German Energiewende. Due to a
dramatic price decrease in recent years, they are now mature technologies and
cost-competitive with conventional energy sources for new investments. As
wind power and solar PV systems are variable sources, flexibility is the new
paradigm of the German power system. Baseload capacities are no longer
needed: power markets and power systems are now built around variable
renewable energy sources.
This chapter provides a fact-based overview of the German Energiewende. It
explains the current status of the energy transition in Germany and outlines the
challenges ahead.
Keywords
Energy transition • Decarbonisation • Market design • Renewables deployment
1 Introduction
When it comes to Germany’s energy transition, it seems that there are only two
opinions: it is either a curse or a blessing. Some praise it for creating jobs,
producing clean and distributed energy, reducing import dependency, and
P. Graichen (*) • C. Redl • M. Steigenberger

Agora Energiewende, Berlin, Germany
e-mail: patrick.graichen@agora-energiewende.de; christian.redl@agora-energiewende.de;
markus.steigenberger@agora-energiewende.de

284 P. Graichen et al.
minimising climate and nuclear risks. Others blame it for escalating costs and
increased grid instability.
Although energy systems around the world are changing, the famous German
Energiewende is attracting explicit attention—and for good reasons. With an
overwhelming three-fourths majority, the German Parliament took steps in 2011
that can no longer be seen as temporary political phenomena but as a clear
commitment to transform the energy system from fossil/nuclear to predominantly
renewables based. Citizens firmly support the energy transition, as surveys regu-
larly prove. The German Parliament’s decisions are quite radical: Germany has
decided to decarbonise its energy sector in favour of renewable energy and energy
efficiency. No other decarbonisation technology, including nuclear or carbon cap-
ture and sequestration (CCS), is considered feasible in the domestic context. While
many countries within the European Union (EU) share similar goals, the scope
of the German transition is unique: Germany is the world’s fifth largest economy
and has a strong industrial basis, so no blueprint exists. Accordingly, the energy
transition is a stepwise exploration of new territory for Germany. Obviously,
decision-makers will encounter pitfalls, difficulties, and challenges, and, again
unsurprisingly, a transition as fundamental as the one Germany is undertaking—
from a fossil–nuclear to an almost entirely renewable energy supply—is creating
uncertainty. At times, market participants, consumers, and decision-makers feel
threatened by the dimensions of this renewable energy transition.
Starting from this observation, we aim to provide insights on what Germany’s
energy transition is all about, describing the state of affairs, trends, and challenges.1
The chapter focuses on the power sector, which many studies have shown will be
crucial in this transition. To reach the EU’s goal of reducing greenhouse gases by
80 to 95 % below 1990 levels by 2050, the EU’s power system will have to be
completely carbon-free by 2050 (e.g. ECF 2010; European Commission 2011).
Thus, in this chapter we first describe the most important developments and the
current state of affairs. Then we identify the key characteristics of the transition in
the power sector resulting from high proportions of variable renewable sources in
Germany’s future energy mix. We conclude by briefly discussing the key
challenges and taking a look at upcoming developments.
2 Targets and State of Affairs of the Energy Transition
With the energy concept of 2010 and the legislative package of 2011, Germany has
decided on a set of concrete goals in different energy sectors. The track record of
the energy transition can best be judged against these targets. Although officially no
hierarchy exists, two main goals can be identified2:
1
This chapter is based on Agora Energiewende (2015a, 2016) and Graichen and Steigenberger
(2016).
2
This classification into goals of first and second order was first developed by the independent
expert group for monitoring of the energy transition; see http://bmwi.de/DE/Themen/Energie/
Energiewende/monitoring-prozess.html.
Building a Renewables-Driven Power System. Successes and Challenges in Germany 285
• Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40 % by 2020 and 80–95 % by 2050

(vs. 1990 levels) and
• Phasing out nuclear energy by the end of 2022.
To achieve these two main goals, a set of additional targets, policies, and
instruments has been established over the years. Among the targets, two stand out:
• Increasing the share of renewable energy and

• Using energy more efficiently.
Table 1 summarises the main targets.

Progress towards achieving these targets has been made in recent years in
Germany, albeit to varying extents. By the end of 2014, greenhouse gas emissions
were reduced by roughly 28 % over 1990 levels but increased slightly from 2014 to
2015. More than a third of the emission reductions occurred between 1990 and 1995
and can thus be attributed both to the industrial breakdown in eastern Germany after
1990 and the modernisation of the inefficient power plants of the former German
Democratic Republic.
Regarding the nuclear phase-out, since 2000, 11 GW of nuclear capacity has
been shut down. According to the phase-out law passed by a 90 % majority in
Table 1 German energy and climate policy targets and status quo
Status quo 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2050
Greenhouse gas 27.2 % 40 % – 55 % – 70 % 80 to
emissions (vs. 1990) (2015) 95 %
Nuclear phase-out 11 power Stepwise phase-out of remaining 8 power plants by end of
plants shut 2022
down since
2000
Overall renewable 13.8% 18 % – 30 % – 45 % 60 %
energy (share in (2014)
consumption)
Electric renewable 31.5 % – 40–45 % – 55–60 % – 80 %
energy (share (2015)
in electricity
consumption)
Primary energy 8.9 % 20 % – – – – 50 %
efficiency (primary (2014)
energy use,
vs. 2008)
Electric energy 3.4 % 10 % – – – – 25 %
efficiency (2015)
(electricity
demand, vs. 2008)
Targets according to energy concept of 2010, except for nuclear target (taken from Nuclear Phase
Out Act 2011) and share of renewable energy in electricity (taken from Renewable Energy Act
2014)
Fig. 1 Share in gross electricity generation by fuel 2015 (left) and gross electricity generation by
fuel 1990–2015 (right). 2015 figures are preliminary (author’s illustration based on AGEB 2016)
Parliament in 2011, the remaining roughly 11 GW nuclear power plants will be shut
down in a stepwise approach (2017, 2019, 2021) by the end of 2022 at the latest.
In the field of energy efficiency, the target translates into an annual increase in
energy productivity of 2.1 %. Between 1990 and 2013, the overall efficiency of the
German economy increased by 1.7 % per year, thus falling short of the target.
Moreover, progress has slowed in recent years. While overall efficiency increased
by 2.2 % between 1990 and 2000, the rate dropped to 1.3 % between 2000 and 2013
(Blazejczak et al. 2014; AG Energiebilanzen 2013).
Finally, renewable energy has grown significantly. In 1990, renewables
accounted for approximately 3 % of Germany’s electricity consumption and 2 %
of overall energy consumption. Today, gross consumption from renewable sources
across all sectors is at 14 % (2015), with the electricity sector reaching 31.5 % in
2015 (AG Energiebilanzen 2015). Renewables development changed the power
market structure tremendously: Triggered by the main support instruments—feed-
in tariffs and feed-in premia—almost 50 % of today’s renewable generation is
owned by citizens—a fact that is considered one of the reasons why the energy
transition remains highly popular in Germany (Trend Research 2014). Figure 1
shows that in 2015 renewables were the most important source in the electricity
system, followed by lignite and hard coal.
3 Second Phase of German Energy Transition: Towards 50 %

Renewables in Germany’s Power System
Breaking the 30 % threshold of renewable electricity in final power consumption in

2015 symbolically represented entering into the second phase of the energy transi-
tion. While the first phase was characterised by the innovation and development
of a variety of renewable technologies, the current debate is about wind and
photovoltaics (PV) becoming the dominant generation source. This is bringing
about fundamental changes and challenges to the power system. We will describe
them in the following sections in more detail.
3.1 It Is All About Wind Power and Solar PV
Wind energy and solar PV form the backbone of the German Energiewende. Owing
to a dramatic price decrease in recent years, they are now mature technologies and
cost-competitive with conventional energy sources for new investments. In 2015,
generation costs in Germany ranged between EUR 0.06 and 0.09/kWh for wind
energy3 and EUR 0.08 and 0.09/kWh for solar PV. Costs have decreased further
also in 2016. For example, the recent tender for ground-mounted PV in Germany
(December 2016) has cleared at an average remuneration of EUR 0.069/kWh. All
other renewable technologies are either significantly more expensive or have
limited potential in Central Europe. Figure 2 shows the development of gross
electricity generation from renewables from 2000 to 2035. Development till 2035
is based on the main scenario according to the German regulatory authority.
The technological development of wind power and solar PV systems has been
rapid in recent years (Fig. 3). Today’s wind turbines are 20 times more powerful
than those 20 years ago (average 3 MW instead of 170 kW), and costs for solar PV
have fallen by up to 90 % in the last 25 years. Furthermore, the end of the learning
curve has not yet been reached.4 The potential for both technologies is significant.
Even in densely populated Germany, 1200 GW of wind power onshore could
theoretically be installed (UBA 2013). The technical and ecologically sound poten-
tial of PV is estimated at about 275 GW (UBA 2011).
In contrast, other renewables will not be able to increase their share in the power
mix significantly. Biomass today already accounts for 8 % of Germany’s electricity
generation. However, projections expect it to remain below 10 % in the long run.
The reason is resource constraints—acreage is limited, and the use of wood and
Fig. 2 Gross electricity generation of renewable energies, 2000–2035 (author’s illustration based
on 2000–2014: AGEB 2015; 2015–2035: author’s calculation based on BNetzA 2015)
3
The dominant technology is wind onshore. While the installed capacity of wind offshore was less
than 1 GW in 2013, the government is planning to increase this figure to 6.5 GW by 2020 and
15 GW by 2030.
4
For projections of future cost developments of renewable technologies see, for example,
Fraunhofer ISE (2013) and Hirschhausen et al. (2013).
Fig. 3 Size development of wind turbines 1990–2015 (author’s illustration based on IEA 2014)
energy crops directly competes with other needs, especially raising food crops or
raw materials for industry—in Germany and other countries. The quantity of
low-cost biomass is more or less exhausted, and remuneration levels for biomass
plants in the German support scheme are rising rather than falling.5 Hydropower
currently contributes approximately 4 % to Germany’s electricity mix and will
remain on this level because the potential for expanding hydropower capacity is
very limited in Germany. The situation with geothermal is similar; limited potential
and high costs suggest that this technology will not increase its share significantly.
Other technologies, such as wave power or osmosis, are still in the development
stage. Whether they will ever be able to play a significant role is unclear.
3.2 Wind Onshore and Solar PV Are the Cheapest

Decarbonisation Options, and Integration Costs Are Well
Defined and Rather Low
Today, wind onshore and solar PV are cost-competitive with all other newly built
conventional energy sources (in terms of levelised costs of electricity generation, or
LCOE), with generation costs in Germany ranging in 2015 between EUR 0.06 and
0.09/kWh for wind and EUR 0.08 and 0.09/kWh for solar PV (Fig. 4). Furthermore,
additional cost decreases can be expected, especially for solar PV, with LCOE
ranging from EUR 0.055 to 0.08/kWh by 2025.6
From a system perspective that considers the costs of integrating variable wind
and PV technologies into the power system, the picture does not change substan-
tially. Integration costs of adding wind onshore or solar PV into the German system,
even at high penetration rates, may range around EUR 0.005 to 0.02/kWh (see
Fig. 5).
5
In 2002, basic remuneration for small biomass plants was EUR 0.101/kWh, while in 2012 it was
EUR 0.143/kWh.
6
Fraunhofer ISE (2015).
Fig. 4 Range of levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) 2015. The range is based on varying
utilisation, CO2 price, and investment cost (Agora Energiewende 2015a, b)
Fig. 5 Components of integration costs (Agora Energiewende 2015a, b)
Three components are typically discussed under the term integration costs of
wind and solar energy: grid costs, balancing costs, and cost effects on conventional
power plants (so-called utilisation effect).7 The calculation of these costs varies
widely depending on the specific power system and methodologies applied. More-
over, opinions diverge concerning how to attribute certain costs and benefits, not
only to wind and solar energy but to the system as a whole.
Integration costs for grids and balancing are well defined and rather low. Certain
costs for building electricity grids and balancing can be clearly classified without
much discussion as costs that arise from the addition of new renewable energy. In
the literature, these costs are often estimated at EUR 5 to 13/MWh, even with high
shares of renewables.
However, experts disagree on whether the utilisation effect can (and should) be
considered as integration costs, as it is difficult to quantify and new plants always
modify the utilisation rate of existing plants. When new solar and wind plants are
7
For further details see IEA (2014).
added to a power system, they reduce the utilisation of the existing power plants
and, thus, their revenues.
Thus, in most cases, the cost for “backup” power increases. Calculations of these
effects range between EUR 6 and þ13/MWh in the case of Germany at a
penetration of 50 % wind and PV, depending especially on the CO2 cost. Despite
the debate about integration costs, the comparison of the total power system costs of
different scenarios is a more appropriate approach to analysing the question: What
are the implications of choosing path A or path B?8
3.3 Flexibility Is the New Paradigm of Germany’s Power System
The characteristics of PV and wind are radically different from those of fossil fuel
power plants. Wind energy and solar PV have variable output and provide elec-
tricity only when the wind blows and the sun shines. Given their short-term
variability, they cannot be turned based on the demand for electricity. Further-
more, they are characterised by high capital costs and virtually no operating costs.
Once installed, wind and solar power plants produce electricity at almost zero
marginal cost. Therefore, they change the utilisation patterns of the conventional
generation fleet, encouraging less baseload operation and more middle and peak
operation.
These features fundamentally alter power systems and power markets, which
must cope with highly fluctuating power generation.9 This new power system is
characterised by enhanced flexibility to respond quickly to changes in variable
generation and changes in the load. Baseload capacities will no longer be needed,
but relatively more mid-merit and peak load capacities that quickly adjust their
production will be. Fossil power plants will need to become very responsive; in
essence, they will have to ramp up and down more frequently, operate often at
partial loads, and be turned on and off with greater regularity. Figure 6 illustrates
this need for flexibility for three sample weeks in 2023 for situations with both high
and low shares of renewables generation.
A geographically widespread expansion of wind and solar PV will help to reduce
the burden of increasing flexibility (Fig. 7). Wind and solar PV complement each
other as their generation patterns are different. While solar radiation is strongest in
summer and most sunshine occurs during mid-day, the wind can blow at any time,
and it usually blows stronger in the winter in Europe.10
8
A greenfield power system, for example, consisting of 50 % newly built wind and solar combined
with 50 % newly built gas-fired power plants would yield total power generation costs of around
EUR 70 to 80/MWh (including integration costs). These costs are 21 % lower than a system with
the same emission performance but consisting of 50 % nuclear generation and 50 % gas-fired
generation (Prognos 2014).
9
At the latest, by 2030 renewables will provide some 50 % of total German electricity demand. At
that time, wind power and solar PV will have a share of some 35 % in the generation mix.
10
For further details, see Fraunhofer IWES (2015).
Fig. 6 Electricity generation and consumption in three sample weeks, 2023. The modelling is
based on 2011 weather and load data (Agora Energiewende 2013 based on Fraunhofer IWES)
Fig. 7 Time series of onshore wind power generation in a simulation for May 2030 at different
levels of aggregation (as a percentage of installed capacity at specific aggregation level). Note that
one pixel is equivalent to an area of 2.8 2.8 km. The Pentalateral Energy Forum (PLEF) region
comprises Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Switzerland
(Fraunhofer IWES 2015)
3.4 Power Systems Possess a Broad Range of Flexibility Options
In addition to flexible fossil power plants, several other flexibility options exist to
incorporate variable energy sources in the power system. These include demand-
side management, the expansion of (smart) grid infrastructure, bioenergy power
plants, the temporary curtailment of wind and PV energy, new storage technologies,
and new electricity demands from other sectors such as power-to-heat and electric
cars.11
11
For further details, see Agora Energiewende (2016).
Currently, the German power system offers abundant technical potential for
flexibility (much higher than the actual demand for flexibility). Nevertheless, effi-
cient market incentives need to be designed to translate the flexibility needs into
market prices and leverage this technical potential in the most cost-efficient way.
4 Forthcoming Challenges
The German energy transition is a long-term industrial and societal transformation.

Given the transformational nature of the project, the stakeholders of this energy
transition (policymakers, consumers, utilities, industries) will face many new
challenges and opportunities in the coming years and decades.
We will focus on the issues of grid infrastructure, reducing CO2 emissions,
improving energy efficiency, and scaling up regional cooperation in this chapter.
Chapter “A Holistic Power Market Design Framework and Implications for Mar-
keting Renewables” will then deal with the issue of power market design, financing
of renewables, and their integration into the power markets.
4.1 Upgrading the Grid from North to South Is Crucial

for the German and European Electricity Market
Grid expansion—both nationally and with neighbouring countries—constitutes an

important flexibility option to balance volatile influx from wind and PV over long
distances (Fig. 7). In geographically larger areas, supply and demand can be
balanced more easily, especially when complementary production and consump-
tion profiles exist. In addition, a well-developed grid enables the utilisation of other
flexibility options across regions.
In Germany, the major challenge lies in accelerating the reinforcement of the
grid on the South–North axis (Fig. 8). This is also important for European market
integration, for example to avoid loop flows, especially in Central-Eastern Europe.
The four German transmission system operators publish an annual national network
development plan that contains the expansion and reinforcement measures required
for the next 10 years to ensure stable and reliable operation of the grid. The grid
development plan estimates a need for 3500 km of new transmission lines, of which
2000 km are allocated to the erection of four HVDC North–South corridors. This
expansion need arises predominantly from the fact that the additional wind power in
Germany will be built in the North close to the coast, while major industrial power
consumers are situated in Southern Germany. Surplus power produced in the North
can lead to unplanned power flows through the grids of Germany’s neighbours to
reach Southern Germany. Over the last few years, these unplanned flows have led to
a decrease in commercial power exchange between Germany and Poland. This loop
flow issue has been provisionally solved by establishing a virtual phase-shifter
(binational re-dispatch mechanism), which will be followed in the next year by the
introduction of physical phase-shifters on the German–Polish and later on the
Fig. 8 Necessary expansion

and restructuring of German
electricity grid up to 2024,
according to German network
development plan NEP 2024
(Agora Energiewende 2015)
German–Czech borders—the first having been taken online in June 2016. Unsolved
loop flow issues can slow down the process of integrating Europe’s power markets.
Furthermore, expansion and reinforcement measures in the distribution network
are absolutely necessary because a large part of wind energy onshore and PV are
directly connected at this level. Grid developments often face acceptance problems
from local populations, leading to delays in the deployment of this infrastructure.
Building consensus at the local level through enhanced dialogue with a variety of
stakeholders will be key for widening the necessary public acceptance for these
projects.
4.2 Meeting Climate Targets
CO2 emissions from the power sector fell sharply in 2014 (5 % reduction compared
to 2013 levels) owing to favourable developments in renewable energy and energy
efficiency, together with a mild winter and a decrease in power produced using hard
coal (to its second lowest level since 1990). The emissions of the power sector are
expected to decline further in a business-as-usual scenario by about 37 MtCO2 by

2020. However, this declining trend in the power sector is not sufficient to meet
2020 reduction targets, making further reduction efforts necessary. A set of com-
plementary policy measures has been discussed in Germany in order to fill the gap,
resulting in policies to enable the early retirement of 2.7 GW of Germany’s oldest
lignite power plants by October 2019.
German coal power plants, especially lignite-based ones, are currently extremely
competitive. This is the result of two factors. First, the European Emissions Trading
System (ETS), the main European instrument for internalising the costs of CO2
emissions in the power sector, is weak (as a consequence of the vast over-
allocations of CO2 certificates). Unless remedied, this will lead to persistent low
CO2 prices. Second, coal prices are currently very low on the world market (a side
effect of the US shale gas revolution). This has led to an increasingly wide spread
between cheap coal and expensive gas in Europe. As a result, German coal power
plants produce at very high levels, contributing to historically high export levels
and a crowding-out of gas power plants both in Germany and in neighbouring
countries. This trend has led to an increase in CO2 emissions between 2011 and
2013 in Germany, despite a rise in renewable energy during the same period
(a counterintuitive development known as the “Energiewende paradox”).
Germany and the EU as a whole need to fix their carbon policies, to reverse the
coal resurrection witnessed recently all over Europe. But also strengthened domes-
tic policies are required to reduce the large stock of emission-intensive coal
capacities in the German power system. Indeed, Germany can only reach its 2020
emission reduction targets if it drastically reduces electricity generation from
lignite and hard coal. An analysis from Agora Energiewende has shown that the
shares of lignite and coal need to drop from 45 % in 2014 to at most 28 % in 2030 to
meet the 2030 climate target. By 2040, a complete phase-out of coal would be
required (Fig. 9).
Fig. 9 Installed lignite and hard coal capacities in a proposed Coal Consensus Path 2040 (Agora
Energiewende 2016)
4.3 A Coherent Strategy and New Business Models Must Be

Developed to Leverage the Potential of Energy Efficiency
Measures
In addition to renewable energy targets, the Energiewende sets ambitious goals in

terms of energy efficiency: Primary energy consumption is to be reduced by 20 %
by 2020 and 50 % by 2050 (compared to 2008 levels). This requires an increase of
energy productivity of 2.1 % per annum. In the electricity sector, consumption is to
decrease by 10 % by 2020 and 25 % by 2050.
Although Germany has managed to decouple economic growth from energy
consumption, further policies and measures are needed to consolidate recent trends
in electrical efficiency and to speed up the decline in primary energy consumption.
There is already a broad mix of energy efficiency instruments and programmes
in Germany, but more effort is needed. Market-based solutions for triggering
investments in energy efficiency do not appear sufficient since business models
that focus on energy efficiency are usually associated with high initial costs and
long payback periods. A coherent strategy and additional instruments need to be
implemented to support investments. One possibility—as offered by the EU Energy
Efficiency Directive—is to require energy suppliers or network operators to imple-
ment efficiency obligation schemes (to comply with binding targets). In Germany
there is still no majority to implement such obligations. Therefore, in its National
Action Plan on Energy Efficiency (NAPE), the German government aimed instead
at alternative measures, including funding and support programmes, regulatory
instruments for setting standards, information and advice programmes, and finan-
cial incentives. The NAPE adopted in December 2014, together with the Climate
Action Programme 2020, aims at setting forth an Energy Efficiency Strategy for the
current (18th) legislative term to meet the national and European energy efficiency
targets.
4.4 Enhancing Cooperation Between Neighbouring Countries

and Deepening European Power Market Integration
Cooperation among European neighbours makes the energy transition easier and
less costly. Significant gains could be expected if the optimisation of the power
market design were realised on the Pan-European level. Studies have estimated
annual net benefits of a Pan-European power system integration in the range of
EUR 12.5 to 42.6 billion (Booz and Co. 2013; ECF 2010).
As a first step, it is likely that a regional approach will continue to evolve,
starting on the level of a few already well-integrated countries, and consider scaling
up to the European level at a later stage. From a German perspective, closer
cooperation with the Nordic countries as well as the Alpine region could be
interesting as the hydro capacity in these countries could match quite well with
increasing variable renewable generation in Germany. A good example of regional
cooperation and integration is the so-called Pentalateral Energy Forum. This forum
was established to integrate energy markets in France, Germany, the Netherlands,
Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria, and Switzerland in the context of the market
coupling process. The governments of the Pentalateral Energy Forum countries
decided to take the next steps and address joint system adequacy issues.
Sharing resources and developing joint regulatory frameworks could help
achieve system adequacy at lower costs and balance variable power generation
across Europe. National energy policy instruments are, however, still very
fragmented (for example, on renewable energy support schemes and adequacy
measures, including capacity mechanisms), which can lead to inefficiencies and
distortive effects. For all EU member states it is thus key to work closely with their
neighbours, both bilaterally and within regional initiatives.
5 A Holistic Power Market Design Framework

and Implications for Marketing Renewables
Power sector decarbonisation rests on continuous investments in renewables and

flexibility options. Usually it is expected that the energy market will deliver these
investments, in combination with the ETS. However, we argue that this rather
theoretical view to power market design is not the way forward. Instead, a more
pragmatic approach is needed that takes into account the complex practical, politi-
cal, and economic challenges of the transition to a carbon-free power system.
A pragmatic market design approach consists of five elements:
• More flexible energy and balancing markets: A well-functioning, broad, liquid

and—through further grid expansion and enhanced market coupling—increas-
ingly EU-wide integrated wholesale market with low barriers to entry on both
the demand and supply side in order to manage the flexibility challenge;
• A European ETS that provides a long-term, declining cap on power sector
emissions;
• Complementary EU-level measures enabling member states with a high share of
coal-fired power plants to chart a pathway out of coal (smart and managed
retirement);
• Market-based instruments for revenue stabilisation for renewable energy source
(RES) investments paid through premiums on market prices or long-term
contracts to unlock the needed investments in new renewable energy capacities;
• Clear rules on government interventions to safeguard system adequacy consis-
tent with the need for increasingly flexible power systems and long-term
decarbonisation.
Together, these elements form a so-called Power Market Pentagon (Fig. 10); all
of them are required for a functioning market design. Their interplay ensures that,
despite legacy investments in high-carbon and inflexible technologies, fundamental
Fig. 10 Power Market Pentagon (Agora Energiewende 2016)
uncertainties about market dynamics, and CO2 prices well below the social cost
of carbon, the transition to a reliable, decarbonised power system can occur in a
cost-efficient manner. In what follows, we will focus on Element 4 of the Power
Market Pentagon—providing for stable market revenues for new investments in
renewables (RES-E).12
5.1 Providing for Stable Market Revenues for New RES-E

Investments
There is an ongoing and important academic debate concerning the electricity

market prices achieved by RES installations during the hours they produce when
the power system has a high share of variable renewables.13 Beyond theory-based
arguments, there is some evidence that a higher share of variable renewables
(vRES) is associated with falling market revenues for each kilowatt-hour of
vRES electricity produced. Some questions remain, however: Does this reduction
in market revenues decline slower or faster than the still falling LCOE of newly
12
For further details on all elements of the Power Market Pentagon, see Agora Energiewende
(2016).
13
See for example Agora Energiewende (2015) and references therein, Hirth (2013), and Hartner
et al. (2015).
built RES capacity? Furthermore, does an increase in flexibility options in the

power system result in a bottoming out of the market price? In other words, does
the market value of wind and PV decline as a function of the speed of their
deployment? Does their market value increase in relation to the speed with which
the overall power system becomes more flexible? If the market revenues achieved
by wind and PV were to fall faster than LCOEs, this would support the argument
that at higher shares of wind and PV, new investments in these two technologies
typically cannot be fully financed from wholesale market revenues.
Furthermore, at high shares of RES-E, the marginal price in the wholesale
market will, during an increasing number of hours, be set by RES-E and nuclear,
not by fossil fuel fired plants falling under the European ETS. During those hours,
the ETS will thus not add to the market price obtained by RES-E producers. The
moment the last fossil fired power plant is not dispatching, the market price could
drop to the marginal cost of nuclear and/or the marginal cost of RES-E
installations—i.e. zero for wind and PV. By 2030 at the latest, RES-E investors
would anticipate such developments and not invest in new RES-E capacities unless
there is some mechanism for generating stable market revenues, even in presence of
large shares of zero-carbon capacity.
Thus, the framework of laws, policies and measures relevant to renewable
energy is important for providing investors with confidence and stability to invest
into RES-E capacities. Stable and reliable conditions are seen as lower risk, which
translates into lower costs for project developers and lower rates of return needed
to make an investment profitable. Lower rates of return means that—at the same
power price—low risk projects will need no or less help in closing possible
revenue gaps.
Important elements for fit-for-purpose renewables support policies are as
follows:
• Revenue stabilisation mechanisms to close gaps between projected revenues

from electricity sold in the market and needed returns on investment. Various
mechanisms are available to this end (feed-in tariffs, market premiums). Such
interventions could occur at a national level (as is currently the case) or be
coordinated at a regional level. The latter would create more opportunities for
consistent planning of RES deployment and grid infrastructure development;
• Competitive bidding for the construction of new capacities to identify where
and when project developers and investors regard market conditions as suffi-
ciently stable to allow for project development without additional revenue
stabilisation. Small-scale projects will still benefit from administratively set
feed-in tariffs;
• Maintaining the principle of priority grid access and priority dispatch;
• Technology-specific support measures, improved provisions for siting of new
RES capacity, and development of cross-border participation in national renew-
able support schemes.
5.2 Marketing RES-E on Power Markets
Deeper reflection is also likely to take place in the years to come on how to finance
low-carbon assets in the most effective way while at the same time promoting the
marketing of these technologies on the power markets. With the share of
renewables rising to some 50 % by 2030, periods where renewables will meet all
electricity demand will increase substantially. With their marginal costs close to
zero, PV and wind energy will therefore deeply influence price formation on the
energy markets. New revenue stabilisation mechanisms thus need to be able not
only to close the cost recovery gap (see preceding discussion) but also to minimise
overall system costs and wholesale market price distortions. Some proposals,
including one published by Agora Energiewende, suggest a move towards
technology-specific capacity payments for renewable producers (to complement
the revenues made by selling electricity on the market). This would distort as little
as possible the electricity price signals of the energy market for power plant
dispatch and produce additional incentives for renewables plant design that is
compatible with the flexibility needs of the future electricity system.14
6 Conclusion
As we have shown, wind and solar PV will provide the backbone of Germany’s
future zero-carbon power system. The reason is straightforward: Even including the
integration cost, they are cheaper than any other new zero-carbon technology. To
integrate progressively higher shares of volatile renewable electricity in a cost-
effective way, the power system must react flexibly on the supply and demand side
to the more variable patterns of electricity generation from wind and solar PVs.
Consequently, the flexibility challenge has been identified as the main paradigm
shift in Germany’s energy policy: smart grids, renewable assets, fossil power
plants, electricity demand, and storage facilities will have to be highly flexible.
Many technological solutions are already available to solve this issue at comparable
low cost, so that a key task to be solved by German energy politics is to develop a
market design to ensure system adequacy, the necessary build-up of renewables,
and a fair competition between the different flexibility options.
A pragmatic and solution-oriented power market design approach would maxi-
mise the value of the energy-only market and the established ETS, but expand it by
three elements:
• Smart retirement of inflexible high carbon capacity from the system,

• Continued measures to provide stable market revenues for new RES-E
investments, and
• Measures for safeguarding system adequacy.
14
Agora Energiewende (2014).
The German energy transition is embedded in a wider European policy frame-

work designed to bring greater sustainability, energy security, and competitiveness
to Europe. According to the decision of the European council in October 2014,
Europe will continue its ambitious energy and climate policies—decreasing CO2
emissions, developing renewables, and increasing energy efficiency. The EU’s
climate change objectives demand a full decarbonisation of Europe’s power sector
by 2050 at the latest. Importantly, the successful climate summit in Paris in
December 2015 demonstrates that Europe is not alone in this endeavour.
Accordingly, many other European member states have equally ambitious
short- and long-term targets. Thus, the challenges faced by Germany are a snapshot
of what is likely to occur in several countries in the medium to long term. The
transition of electricity systems towards renewable energy is taking place not
only in Europe but also on the global scale: For the third year running,
worldwide investment in new renewable capacity exceeded investment in fossil-
fuel power.
References
Agora Energiewende. (2013). Cost optimal expansion of renewables in Germany. Analysis by
Consentec and Fraunhofer IWES. Accessed June 30, 2016, from https://www.agora-
energiewende.de/en/
Agora Energiewende. (2014). Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz 3.0: Konzept einer strukturellen
EEG-Reform auf dem Weg zu einem neuen Strommarktdesign. Analysis by Öko-Institut.
Accessed June 30, 2016, from https://www.agora-energiewende.de/en/
Agora Energiewende. (2015a). Understanding the Energiewende. FAQ on the ongoing transition
of the German power system. Accessed 30 June 2016 from https://www.agora-energiewende.
de/en/
Agora Energiewende. (2015b). Integration costs of wind and solar power. Concept paper. Berlin,
Agora Energiewende. Accessed June 30, 2016, from https://www.agora-energiewende.de/en/
Agora Energiewende. (2016). The power market Pentagon: A pragmatic power market design for
Europe’s Energy Transition. Accessed June 30, 2016, from https://www.agora-energiewende.
de/en/
AG Energiebilanzen. (2013). Ausgew€ ahlte Effizienzindikatoren zur Energiebilanz Deutschland.
Daten f€ ur die Jahre von 1990 bis 2012. Accessed June 30, 2016, from http://www.ag-
energiebilanzen.de/4-1-Home.html
AG Energiebilanzen. (2015). Stromerzeugung nach Energietr€ agern, 1990–2014. Accessed June
30, 2016, from http://www.ag-energiebilanzen.de/4-1-Home.html
Blazejczak, J., Edler, D., & Schill, W. P. (2014). Improved energy efficiency: Vital for energy
transition and stimulus for economic growth. DIW Economic Bulletin, 4(2014), 3–15.
BNetzA. (2015). Genehmigter Szenariorahmen f€ ur einen Netzentwicklungsplan Strom 2015.
Accessed June 30, 2016, from http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/cln_1432/DE/Home/home_
node.html
Booz & Co. (2013). Benefits of an integrated European Energy Market. Final Report Prepared for
Directorate-General Energy European Commission. Accessed June 30, 2016, from https://ec.
europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/20130902_energy_integration_benefits.pdf
European Commission. (2011). Energy roadmap 2050. Accessed June 30, 2016, from https://ec.
europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/2012_energy_roadmap_2050_en_0.pdf
ECF. (2010). Energy roadmap 2050—a practical guide to a prosperous, low carbon Europe.
Accessed June 30, 2016, from http://www.roadmap2050.eu/attachments/files/Volume1_
fullreport_PressPack.pdf
Fraunhofer ISE. (2013). Levelised costs of electricity—renewable energy technologies. Accessed
June 30, 2016, from https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/veroeffentlichungen-
pdf-dateien-en/studien-und-konzeptpapiere/study-levelized-cost-of-electricity-renewable-
energies.pdf
Fraunhofer ISE. (2015). Current and future costs of photovoltaics. Study on Behalf of Agora
Energiewende. Accessed June 30, 2016, from https://www.agora-energiewende.de/en/
Fraunhofer IWES. (2015). The European power system in 2030: Flexibility challenges and
integration benefits. Study on Behalf of Agora Energiewende. Accessed June 30, 2016, from
https://www.agora-energiewende.de/en/
Graichen, P., & Steigenberger, M. (2016). The renewable energy transition – Insights from
Germany’s energiewende. A New Dynamic 2: Effective systems in a circular economy.
Hirschhausen, C., Kemfert, C., Kunz, F., & Mendelevitch, R. (2013). European electricity
generation post-2020: Renewable energy not to be underestimated. DIW Economic Bulletin,
9(2013), 16–25.
Hirth, L. (2013). The market value of variable renewables. Energy Economics, 38, 218–236.
IEA. (2014). The power of transformation—wind, sun and the economics of flexible power systems.
Accessed June 30, 2016, from https://www.iea.org/
Prognos. (2014). Comparing the costs of low carbon technologies. What is the cheapest option?
Study on behalf of Agora Energiewende. Accessed June 30, 2016, from https://www.agora-
energiewende.de/en/
Trend Research. (2014). Definition und Marktanalyse von B€ urgerenergie in Deutschland.
Accessed June 30, 2016, from https://www.buendnis-buergerenergie.de/fileadmin/user_upload/
downloads/Studien/Studie_Definition_und_Marktanalyse_von_Buergerenergie_in_Deutschland_
BBEn.pdf
UBA. (2011). Stromerzeugung aus erneuerbaren Energien. Accessed June 30, 2016, from https://
www.umweltbundesamt.de/
UBA. (2013). Potenzial der Windenergie an Land. Studie zur Ermittlung des bundesweiten
Fl€achen und Landnutzungspotenzials der Windenergienutzung an Land. Accessed June
30, 2016, from https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/
Patrick Graichen is Director of Agora Energiewende

since January 2014, having served as its Deputy Director
in 2012/2013. From 2001 to 2012, he worked at the Federal
Ministry for the Environment. From 2004 to 2006 he served
as personal assistant to the secretary of state in the ministry,
and from 2007 he was Head of Unit for Energy and Climate
Change Policy. During this time, he oversaw negotiations on
the design of the economic instruments of the Kyoto Proto-
col, the Integrated Energy and Climate Programme of the
Federal Government (2007), the European Union’s Climate
and Energy Package (2008), and the legislative procedures
in the area of energy legislation. The Federal Environment
Ministry has granted Mr. Graichen leave for his work at
Agora Energiewende. He studied economics and political science, earning a PhD with a thesis
on the topic of municipal energy policy at the Interdisciplinary Institute for Environmental
Economics, University of Heidelberg.
Christian Redl is part of the European Energy Coopera-

tion team of Agora Energiewende, where he focuses on
power market design and its link to decarbonising power
systems. He also works on options for cross-border cooper-
ation to reap the benefits of integrated power systems and
coordinated policies for energy transition targets. Previ-
ously, he worked for an energy consulting firm in the
Netherlands and as a researcher at Vienna University of
Technology focusing on power market design and system
planning, renewables integration, and decarbonisation
scenarios. Christian holds a PhD in energy economics.
Markus Steigenberger is Deputy Executive Director of

Agora Energiewende. He oversees Agora’s international
activities, heading a team of senior project managers. Before
working at Agora, Markus Steigenberger led the Germany
programme of the European Climate Foundation (ECF). In
this role, he developed ECF’s strategy for Germany and led
its grant-making activities. Previously, Markus held various
positions in German and international civil society
organisations like Friends of the Earth (BUND) or as a
board member of the European Environmental Bureau.
Markus completed his MBA as well as a master of arts
degree in economic history, political science, and law.
Marketing Renewable Energy in France
Michel Cruciani
Abstract
A law adopted in 2015 marked a change in French policy in favour of renewable
energy. A number of ministerial decrees and orders were issued starting in early
2016 introducing significant changes to the financial support of renewable
electricity. In various sectors and for several years France has launched tender
procedures as a means to fix the guaranteed purchase price when feed-in tariffs
apply (e.g. photovoltaic, offshore wind, wood). Beyond certain capacity floors,
the country is now applying the principle of direct selling on the market with
additional compensation. The promotion of heat from renewable sources has
undergone fewer changes since the previous regulatory framework proved to be
quite effective, especially for wood and heat pumps. Only the biofuel sector
faces uncertain future demand. France holds great potential for many renewable
sources; alongside the most common sectors (biomass, hydro, wind,
photovoltaics) the country can also develop less widespread sources, ocean
energy or high-temperature geothermal energy, for example. France is also
striving to stimulate research and innovation in this area.
Keywords
France • Marketing renewables • Financial support
M. Cruciani (*)
CGEMP, Université Paris-Dauphine, Place du Maréchal De Lattre de Tassigny, 75016 Paris,
France
e-mail: michel.cruciani@dauphine.fr

304 M. Cruciani
1 Introduction
France possesses considerable resources for most renewable energy sources: wind,
solar, bioenergy, and so forth. To date, the country has exploited most of its
potential for hydropower and ranks among the first European biofuel producers,
but the untapped potential available for renewable heat and power is still large.
Since 2005 all French governments have gradually adapted legislation to stimulate
the development of these two sectors, but with frequent adjustments, to reflect
changes in public opinion, the lessons learned from the first experiences and new
developments in the European regulatory framework.
In particular, national policymakers keep trying to limit the cost of the financial
support for renewable sources, reflecting a widespread concern among economic
players anxious to keep the rather low price of electricity that the French nuclear
fleet has procured them until recently. This desire led to multiply tender procedures
in several sectors (e.g. biomass, offshore wind, photovoltaic farms), which in return
accustomed French actors to a practice now recommended in the guidelines
adopted by the European Commission in 2014.
The year 2016 has emerged as a major step in this process. After the adoption of
an ambitious law in favour of the energy transition in 2015, the government is now
working to implement its content by issuing ministerial decrees and orders that give
substance to the law. The first months of 2016 saw the arrival of a series of
regulations that could radically overhaul the French renewable energy sector.
This chapter intends to situate these recent developments in historical perspective
and, for each energy source, highlight those new provisions that are already known
as of mid-2016.
2 Starting Point
In 2014, renewable sources totalled 22.8 million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe), of
which 12.5 Mtoe (55 %) is in the form of heat. Figure 1 provides details.
The top four sources account for 80.5 % of the total: wood (42.2 %), hydropower
(23.8 %), heat pumps (8 %) and wind power (6.5 %).
France had a target of 23.3 % of renewables in final energy consumption in 2020
(Directive 2009/28/EC). In its National Action Plan submitted to the European
Commission, France presented plans to achieve that level by bringing renewable
sources to 33 % in the heat sector, to 27 % in the electricity sector and to 9.6 % in the
transport sector. The situation observed in 2014 is depicted in Fig. 2. It shows that
considerable efforts are still required.
Most of the expected contribution will come from already confirmed technolog-
ical sectors, offering off-the-shelf products. However, France also intends to spur
innovation. To this end, the Agency for the Environment and Energy Management
(Agence de l’Environnement et de la Maı̂trise de l’Energie) (ADEME) regularly
issues calls for projects on emerging energy sources, for example, hydrokinetic
Marketing Renewable Energy in France 305
% %
Wood 39.0 Biogas 2.2
Hydropower 23.6 Photovoltaic 2.3
Biofuels 11.6 Residue from agriculture 1.4
Heat Pumps 6.8 Geothermal 1.0
Wind 6.6 Thermal Solar 0.4
Renewable Waste 4.9 Ocean Energy 0.2
Fig. 1 Production from renewable sources in 2014 (all of France depending on authors; statistics
concern mainland France, mainland France + Corsica, or all of France (mainland France + Corsica
+ Overseas Departments), Primary Energy (CGDD 2015)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Fig. 2 Situation in 2014 and targets for 2020. These results are calculated according to EU
methodology, which differs from that applied in general in France. French statistics show climate-
adjusted data (all of France) (CGDD 2015 and PAN 2012)
turbines, floating wind turbines and advanced biofuels. Some calls for tenders also
include specific technological requirements.
3 Electricity
3.1 Overview
France has the largest hydroelectric generating capacity in Europe. It also has the
largest installed nuclear capacity, and opposition to nuclear energy remains moder-
ate. With this fleet, in 2000 France generated more than 90 % of its electricity
without emitting greenhouse gases and without dependency on fossil fuel prices.
This explains why France has not felt the need to quickly develop renewable
sources in the power sector at a time when other countries were undertaking
proactive policies in their favour, such as Denmark, Germany and Spain. Thus,
although the law introduced as early as 2000 the principle of feed-in tariffs for
306 M. Cruciani
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Fig. 3 Capacity of wind (blue) and photovoltaic (red) sources 2000–2015 (all of France) (SOeS
2015; RTE 2016)
renewable electricity, prices were intentionally set at a low level, enabling very few
projects.
A new law, adopted in 2005, required the government to set a target for each
source and authorized the minister to take decisions favouring their achievement.
The targets were set in 2009. However, before they were passed, the government
had raised the level of feed-in tariffs in 2006 for photovoltaics (PVs) and 2008 for
wind energy. The capacity then substantially increased (Fig. 3).
The government elected in 2012 launched a national debate that ended with the
adoption of the Law for the Energy Transition and Green Growth, 17 August 2015.
This law enacts a reduction of the share of nuclear energy by 2025 and higher
ambitions for renewable energy, so that they account 32 % of energy consumed and
40 % of electricity produced in 2030. Under the terms of the law, the government
adjusts the target set for every energy source every 5 years.
Figure 4 shows the old 2020 objectives, adopted in 2009, the situation observed
in 2015 and the goals adopted 24 April 2016, including an intermediate step in 2018
and two possible levels for 2023, low and high. Developments reflect the difference
between the paths drawn in 2009 and the actual results achieved in 2015. As an
example, PV production progressed much faster than had been envisaged in 2009,
which justifies a much higher target. Conversely, maritime wind projects have
fallen behind, causing a postponement of targets to 2023 and beyond. In addition,
two new objectives have been introduced, for wood and biogas. These targets cover
only mainland France; specific targets will be set later for Corsica and the Overseas
Departments.
To accelerate achievements, the decree of 3 April 2016 sets a maximum period
of 2 months for connecting to the grid for facilities up to 3 kW and 18 months for
facilities above 3 kW. The cost of connection depends on a Regional Scheme (Sché
ma Régional de Raccordement au Réseau des Energies Renouvelables) (S3R EnR),
whose formulation was simplified by another decree, this one from 13 April 2016.
Former Achievement New target New target 2023

CAPACITY (MW)
target 2020 2015 2018 Low High
Photovoltaïcs 5,400 6,186 10,200 18,200 20,200
Wind onshore 19,000 10,269 15,000 21,800 26,000
Wind offshore (fixed foundation) 6,000 0 500 3,000
Ocean energy 0 100
Geothermal 2 8 53
Wood 365 540 790 1,040
Biogas 358 137 237 300
Renewable urban waste 2,382
Hydropower 28,300 25,203 25,300 25,800 26,050
Total 58,700 44,765 51,685 69,980 76,743
Fig. 4 Former targets, achievements, new targets for power from renewable energy (mainland
France) (Sources: Former target 2020: Arrêtés du 15 décembre 2009 relatifs à la programmation
pluriannuelle des investissements de production d’électricité; Achievement: CGDD Tableau de
bord PV 2015T4, CGDD Tableau de bord Eolien 2015T4, Observ’ER Baromètre Electrique
Intégral France 2015, CGDD Tableau de bord Biogaz 2015T4, Observ’ER-Baromètre Electrique
Chap-04-Hydraulique 2015; Target 2018 and 2023: Arrêté du 24 Avril 2016 relatif aux objectifs
de développement des énergies renouvelables)
A third decree, published on 29 April 2016, reduces the burden for obtaining
authorization to operate an electrical generating facility.
3.2 Financial Support Mechanism
Following adoption of the law of 17 August 2015, two support mechanisms arose
for renewable electricity:
1. Feed-in tariff (FiT) at a guaranteed price, with two variants, a price set by
ministerial order (the so-called open window principle with no ceiling volume
for generation) or a price determined by a tender procedure (with limited
quantities);
2. Direct sales on the market, with additional compensation, a feed-in premium
(FiP). In most cases this compensation will be determined by a tender procedure
(with limited quantities).
The second mechanism was enacted by three ministerial decrees, published on

27 and 28 May 2016. They concern new facilities and indicate that additional
compensation (complément de rémunération) obeys the equation
Additional compensation ¼ Energy premium þ Management Premium

Capacity Payment
308 M. Cruciani
• The energy premium fills the gap between the average market price and a
reference price, which will usually be determined by a tender procedure. It is
therefore a floating premium.
• The management premium was supposed to be constant and determined by
ministerial order. In fact, in all tenders launched in 2016, the management
premium was internalized in the energy premium.
• The capacity payment will be established upon entry into force of the capacity
market, as of 1 January 2017 (if the European Commission gives the green light).
Three features deserve comment:
1. Several ministerial orders must still clarify this support mechanism, which is
entirely new in France. However, the law changes nothing in connection with the
additional cost of renewable electricity compared to the market price. For the
end consumer, this cost is still included in a specific charge, called the contribu-
tion to the public electricity service (contribution au service public de
l’electricité) (CSPE). This charge was worth EUR 22.5/MWh on 1 January
2016, of which EUR 15.1/MWh was due to renewable energy (CRE 2015).
2. The reference price may be affected by a decreasing coefficient during the period
in which the contract is in force. Moreover, if the average market price exceeds
the reference price, the energy premium becomes negative; this mechanism is
thus akin to the “contract for difference” that exists in the UK. The energy
premium is zero during periods when the market price becomes negative. The
average market price is to be determined every month by the Energy Regulatory
Commission (CRE).
3. Contracts signed within the framework of FiTs usually include an escalation
clause, which links the level of the guaranteed price to indices such as the hourly
cost of labour, the price of industry production or the price of steel products. The
decrees of 27 and 28 May 2016 do not specify whether these provisions will be
renewed within the framework of FiPs.
Facilities subject to the obligation of direct selling in the market may entrust this
function to an aggregator. The aggregation business began to develop in France a
few years ago. The pioneers include Hydronext, an aggregator that gathers the
production of small installations, including hydropower plants. Their adjustable
production is a major asset in terms of balancing, which commits generators to fulfil
the volumes placed on the day-ahead market for each time slot. Aggregators try to
combine various types of facilities in various regions; they can incorporate into
their basket industrial customers that are able to adjust their consumption.
Holders of FiTs whose contracts expire (after 15 or 20 years) will also engage in
direct selling of their production. These producers will seek to garner additional
revenues by selling every guarantee of origin (GO) they can get for each megawatt-
hour from renewable sources. Until 2014, the French market remained extremely
narrow: only 0.5 % of residential consumers and 0.7 % of non-residential
consumers subscribed to a so-called green offer, amounting to 2.5 TWh against a
total consumption of 465.3 TWh (CRE 2015). Two reasons may explain this poor
result:
• Most providers of green offers generally cover the corresponding sales by

purchasing GOs from producers of electricity from renewable sources. In
France, 93 % of GOs were issued by two producers operating old dams that
had been paid for long ago and were not eligible for FiTs, namely EDF and Engie
directly or through its subsidiary Compagnie Nationale du Rhône (CNR). Con-
sumer organizations know this and discourage their members from bringing
additional revenues to the two national giants by subscribing to a green offer.1
• France has retained regulated tariffs (Tarifs Réglementés de Vente, TRV) for
households, set by the government at a deliberately low level to preserve the
purchasing power of citizens. Only EDF and local distribution companies are
entitled to offer them. Their competitors have experienced difficulties with
offering tariffs as low as the regulated tariffs, which aroused the distrust of
consumers in connection with any kind of market offer.
The situation may change in the coming years. The Paris Conference on Climate
Change (COP 21) held in December 2015 has raised awareness of the climate
benefits of renewable energy. Several suppliers now provide green offers, including
a significant proportion of electricity generated from sources such as wind and PVs,
or agree to pay a fraction of their income to funds that finance new installations
(e.g. Enalp, Enercoop, Proxelia). Lower prices on wholesale markets also enable
alternative suppliers to purchase the power they need at a lower cost than that of the
French nuclear fleet, which largely determines the level of regulated tariffs. On
1 July 2016, several green offers already led to an annual bill that is lower than the
bill calculated with regulated tariffs (e.g. Alterna Idea Vert, Direct Energie 100 %
Pur Jus, Lampiris or Planète Oui). Finally, since 2015, the French market has been
open to GOs from other EU member states, which expands the options for buyers.
3.3 Photovoltaics
Between 2002 and 2010, support for PV power was based entirely on FiTs at a price
fixed by ministerial order with 20-year contracts. In 2006, this price benefited from
a sharp rise. When solar panel prices dropped in 2008, the installation of PV
1
Under French law, renewable electricity producers who have signed a FiT contract are obliged to
sell their production to EDF or to a local distribution company (entreprise locale de distribution,
ELD). EDFs and ELDs receive compensation equivalent to the difference between the guaranteed
purchase price and the market price. Until recently, the compensation received for 1 MWh from a
new renewable source (e.g. wind, photovoltaic, biomass) was much higher than the price of a GO,
which the CRE assesses at a level below EUR 4/MWh. Hence it was not in the interest of EDFs to
issue GOs from these new sources. While 102.5 TWh of renewable electricity was generated in
France in 2013, only 20.3 TWh of GOs was released (approximately 20 % of generation).
310 M. Cruciani
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Fig. 5 FiT for built-in roof panels with power between 0 and 9 kWp (PV Info 2016; CRE 2015)
systems became extremely lucrative, causing a rush for projects. Given the risk of
an explosive increase of the CSPE, the government decided to reduce every quarter
the guaranteed purchase price and keep it at a low level for capacity above
100 kWp. For such capacity, the low level of the tariff was meant as an incentive
for project developers to respond to calls of tender launched from 2011 on.2 The
decrease of the price set for FiTs appears in Fig. 5.
As regards tenders, two different procedures are implemented:
1. Fast-track tenders for power from 100 to 250 kWp per generation unit: All bids
are made over the Internet. Selection in 2013 was based on two criteria, with a
total score of 30 points:
• Required purchase price, from 20 points (¼ EUR 80/MWh) to 0 (>EUR
180/MWh; bids with a score of 0 were discarded).
• Carbon footprint of panels (kgeqCO2/kWp) from 10 points (¼295) to
0 (>2118).
2. Detailed tenders for power above 250 kWp per generation unit: Specifications
differ according to the site (ground, rooftop). Specifications may promote new
technologies (e.g. sun trackers, concentrated PVs, combined heat and power
solar) as well as good integration into the grid (e.g. management of reactive
power, power forecast, storage). Specifications may also value PV farms located
on poor quality grounds (e.g. contaminated sites, brownfields, fallow).
Available results displayed in Fig. 6 show that, so far, the tendering procedure
for PVs in France seems satisfactory. Competition works: there are a sufficient
number of bidders and more bidders than required to meet the tendered volume,
risks are manageable, no strategic bidding appears and purchase price is declining.
2
For facilities outside tendering of a capacity above 100 kWp, the FiT price was EUR 58/MWh on
27 May 2016.
Applications Capacity Purchase

Number MW Price
Total Selected Target Proposed Selected €/MWh
2012 4 25 105 450 1891 520 210
C>250
2013 3 96 121 400 1721 380 142
2014-Q1 594 177 40 124 40 168

100<C<250 2014-Q2 706 193 40 144 41 165
2014-Q3 932 217 40 189 41 153
Fig. 6 Results of tender procedures for PVs in 2013 and 2014 (Sources: CRE: Cahier des charges
des appels d’offres 2012, 2013 et 2014; PV > 250 kW: CRE: Avis sur les appels d’offres; PV 100 à
250 kW: Communiqué de presse du Ministère de l’Environnement, de l’Energie et de la Mer du
17 Novembre 2014)
Projects are also realized after the tender, and thus the political targets for the roll-
out of PVs are met.
Discussion is still open on the following issues:
• Prequalification criteria;
• Penalties in case of default;
• Ability to transfer or trade obligations on a secondary market;
• Ensuring a variety of actors, including local and civic participation; consider-
ation may be given to separate auctions for small projects, small tender sizes and
easy access (a one-page application form), defined share of tender reserved for
small or local bidders. But who defines small local actors and civic participation?
According to information available in June 2016, support mechanisms will be as

follows:
• Rooftop PVs with a capacity less than or equal to 100 kWp: FiT with guaranteed
price set by ministerial order (open window);
• PV farms of a capacity higher than 100 kWp: FiT with price determined by
tender (limited volume).
Several tenders remained open as of early 2016, and on 28 June 2016 the
ministry announced new calls for tenders in the coming months, with a volume of
1000 MW per year for 6 years, as well as an upcoming tender in 2016 for PV
systems with self-consumption of electricity generated.
3.4 Onshore Wind
According to a study by the European Environment Agency in 2009, France has one
of the four best wind potentials in Europe (EEA 2009). Yet by late 2014 France was
ranked 15th for installed capacity in relation to population, with 145 W/capita
(vs. 862 in Denmark, 471 in Portugal and 246 in Austria, for example)
(Eurobserv’ER 2015). This poor result reflects the reluctance of a significant part
312 M. Cruciani
of the population to adopt this source of energy. The causes are many: for example,
devotion to the landscape, presence of many historical and natural protected sites,
importance of tourism in economic activity, scattered housing with owners fearing
a devaluation of property assets. This distrust is reflected in the frequently changing
rules by Parliament, which has put in place heavy and cumbersome procedures that
lengthen construction times by up to 5 years on average per project. Despite the
strict rules, about 35 % of projects are the subject of legal action on the part of local
residents.
Onshore wind energy is nevertheless encouraged by public authorities. The
support mechanism has until now rested entirely on the FiT with a guaranteed
price for 15 years. Unlike the PV industry, the price has not changed since
17 November 2008. However, one of the most powerful French anti-wind
associations, Wind of Anger, sued over the ministerial order introducing this
price before the Court of Justice of the EU. After a long procedure, the European
Commission authorized the French government to maintain this price, which had
been set by a ministerial order of 17 June 2014. The case is not yet over because
Wind of Anger is now requiring that wind farms that benefited from the tariff before
its legalization in 2014 pay compensation to the state.
The guaranteed purchase price that prevails in 2016 has a special feature: it is
designed with a view towards the equality of regions. Since 2008, the purchase
price will be applied for 15 years, in two different periods:
• During the first 10 years, the purchase price is set at EUR 82/MWh;
• This price will apply again for the next 5 years in low wind areas (load factor
below 27 %). In other areas, the price drops to a level depending on the load
factor (Fig. 7).
The aim of the legislation was that at EUR 82/MWh for 15 years, even areas
poorly endowed with wind may host wind farms. Figure 8 shows the results of this
policy: the regions hosting the largest generation capacity are not always the
windiest. From an economic point of view, the CSPE transfers to the electricity
consumer a charge that aims to support renewable energy, not at the lowest possible
cost, but at a level increased by the cost of a policy of national territorial
development.
The decision of the European Commission would extend the wind FiT until
2019, but the French government announced that a FiP mechanism would apply to
wind power as soon as 2017.
3.5 Offshore Wind
By launching very early onshore wind support mechanisms, several European

countries have fostered a powerful national wind industry, Germany, Denmark
and Spain in particular. France, which got off to a late start, lost most of the market
share: by late 2014, French manufacturers had provided only 4 % of the installed
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 27% 32% 41%
Fig. 7 Purchase price for wind energy for last 5 years of FiT contract (Order 11/17/2008). (In this
example, a load factor of 36 % on average during years 1–10 would imply a guaranteed purchase
price below EUR 50/MWh in years 11–15)
Fig. 8 Comparison of windiest regions and locations of wind capacity (Sources: Carte des vents
dominants en France: http://www.meteo10.com/carte-des-vents.php; Maps: http://commons.
wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carte_France_geo_dep3.png. Accessed 30 June 2016; Capacity: Le jour-
nal de l’éolien, Hors-série n 15, June 2014)
wind capacity in the country. After 2009, successive governments have deemed that it
was still possible to develop a national industry for offshore wind. A support mecha-
nism aimed at this objective was thus designed. The mechanism being currently
implemented relies exclusively on FiTs at a guaranteed price determined by tender.3
3
Until 2014, the regulation left the possibility of establishing offshore wind farms benefiting from
a FiT with a price determined by ministerial decree. This price was identical to that of wind power
on land (EUR 82/MWh in 2008), which remained far too low to bring about any real results.
314 M. Cruciani
A first call of tender was launched in July 2011 for 3000 MW in five locations.
The specifications made it possible to classify the candidates according to three
criteria, summarized in what follows:
1. Required purchase price (40 points)

2. Industrial quality
Industrial reliability (14 points)
Impact of industrial facilities (2 points)
Mastery of technical and financial risks (22 points)
Action beneficial to R& D (2 points)
3. Environmental and social quality
Minimizing the number of installed units (10 points)
Reducing impact on existing activities (4 points)
Compensation for environmental impacts (4 points)
Environmental monitoring system (1 point)
Decommissioning plan (1 point)
Total score from 0 to 100 points
As regards the first criterion, the tender did not provide for any floor or ceiling
for the price. The rating was based according to the location, on a curve defined by
area, to take into account local conditions (e.g. distance to shore, depth of water,
wind quality). This curve is reproduced in Fig. 9.
While respecting the European competition rules, the second group of criteria
was intended to confer an advantage on companies that planned to establish
manufacturing facilities in France.
The first tender had the following results:
• The consortium Eolien Maritime France was chosen on three of the four sites for
which it had submitted a bid (Fécamp, Courseulles and Saint-Nazaire). It
brought together EDF-EN and Dong Energy; two other partners will play a
smaller role: WPD Offshore and Nass & Wind. The turbines will be built by
Alstom (which had been acquired by General Electric in the meantime).
• The consortium Ailes Marines received one site (Saint-Brieuc). It was composed
of Iberdrola and Eole-RES, with a participation of Technip and STX. The
turbines were to be built by a joint venture between Areva and Gamesa.4
In total, the four selected sites will have a capacity of 1928 MW. The fifth site
(Le Tréport) was awarded at the end of the second tender, the winner being the
4
Areva and Gamesa had established a joint venture named Adwen to build these turbines.
Meanwhile, Gamesa has allied to Siemens. Given its financial difficulties, Areva wants to
withdraw from the wind business. Before the end of 2016, Adwen could be either absorbed by
Gamesa or sold to General Electric, which had already taken over the wind-related activity of
Alstom in 2015.
Fig. 9 Mark according to

required purchase price (CRE
2011)
consortium Engie and EDP-R, which also received the site Yeu-Noirmoutier, with
Areva-Gamesa turbines. The total capacity will reach 992 MW.
Although prices are still provisional, the information available in the published
results give an approximation (Fig. 10).
On 4 April 2016, the French government announced a third call for tenders for an
offshore wind farm off the coast of Dunkirk.
Alongside these tenders, ADEME launched a call for projects for four offshore
wind parks equipped with three to six floating wind turbines. Two projects seem
well placed:
• Vertiwind, with a vertical axis wind turbine of 2 MW; a prototype should be

tested in 2017 prior to subsequent construction of a farm equipped for 26 MW in
the Mediterranean Sea;
• Winflo, innovative wind turbine; a 2.5 MW demonstrator is being tested in the
UK before preproduction.
3.6 Hydropower
France is the second European producer of hydroelectricity, behind Norway.

Generation in 2015 was 58.7 TWh (excluding generation from pumping),
amounting to 10.8 % of the total power generation and 60 % of French electricity
from renewable sources. Total hydropower capacity is 25.4 GW in mainland
France, including 4.3 GW of pumped hydro storage (stations de transfert d’energie
par pompage) (STEP). The country has just over 2000 small plants (with a capacity
under 10 MW), totalling 2 GW of installed capacity and generating about 7.5
TWh/year (FHE 2016; RTE 2016).
The development of hydroelectric production in France is hampered by several
considerations:
316 M. Cruciani
Fig. 10 Purchase price Expected Selected Purchase

(approximate)—tendering Capacity Capacity Price
procedure for offshore wind MW MW €/MWh
(CRE 2012, 2014) (price
First Tender 3,000 1,928 212
includes grid costs)
Second Tender 1,000 992 232
1. The best sites are already equipped,

2. Uncertainty persists on the renewal of concessions currently granted to EDF or
Engie,
3. The European Water Framework Directive especially affected France because of
its variety of natural environments.
4. The various water users must share the resource in order to
– Regulate the flow to prevent flooding,
– Irrigate crops,
– Supply drinking water,
– Combat wildfires,
– Sustain fishing and water-based activities.
To understand point 2, recall that in France, rivers belong to the public domain.
Industrial facilities using water from rivers are only allowed to do this through
temporary concessions. European directives governing public procurement impose
competition when concessions are up for renewal. In France, 49 dams, representing
5.2 GW (20 % of French hydroelectric facilities), saw their concession expire at the
end of 2015. However, local officials are worried by the possible arrival of foreign
operators likely to relocate part of the activities and to be less sensitive to local
concerns than existing recipients EDF (80 %) and Engie (17 %). Moreover, the
dispersion of concessions could impede the upstream–downstream coordination of
operations. Finally, no other European country is subject to an equivalent measure.
In an attempt to defuse the hostility of local officials, the law of 17 August 2015
authorizes the creation of semi-public companies (société d’economie mixte)
(SEM) or public–private partnerships (PPPs) allowing local authorities to remain
involved. To date, this provision has not been used.
The European Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) was transposed into
French law by the Law on Water and Aquatic Environments [Loi sur l’eau et les
milieux aquatiques (LEMA) on 30 December 2006], which differentiates streams
into two categories:
• Rivers of high environmental value will serve as a biological reservoir; they

must ensure complete protection of species. New facilities are forbidden and
existing facilities must be adapted to this purpose;
• On other rivers, the facilities shall allow the passage of sediments and migratory
fish. Specifically, so-called fish ladders shall be built and the instream flow,
which provides water circulation in all circumstances, shall be increased from

1/40 (1984 act) to 1/10 of the average annual flow. This restriction leads to
generation losses that can reach 10 % of annual volume.
Before the introduction of new constraints by LEMA, the additional hydropower

potential was estimated at 7 TWh. The current target was reduced and now stands at
3 TWh by 2020. Given a loss of 2 TWh due to increased instream flow, new
structures should provide 5 TWh. This figure can be achieved through the
strengthening of existing structures by 2 TWh and through new installations in
small hydropower by 3 TWh. The areas likely to receive new equipment are defined
by the Regional Directorates of Environment, Planning and Housing (DREAL) and
the National Office for Water and Aquatic Environments (ONEMA).
Until May 2016, all initiatives were encouraged by a FiT, with a guaranteed
purchase price for 20 years, fixed since the order of 1 March 2007 at EUR 60.7/
MWh. This price could be increased by a bonus for small installations (EUR 5–25/
MWh) and increased again by another bonus favouring generation during peak
periods. This mechanism will remain in place for new water plants with a capacity
of less than 500 kW (continental France) as an open window. For installations with
power between 500 kW and 1 MW, the guaranteed purchase price will be deter-
mined by a tender procedure (with limited quantities). Beyond 1 MW, the rule will
be direct selling in the market, with additional compensation. The facilities already
in service in May 2016 can sign a new 20-year contract providing access to FiTs
(if their power is less than or equal to 1 MW) or additional compensation (for power
greater than 1 MW) when they commit to a specific investment programme.
3.7 Other Renewable Sources of Electricity
Ocean Energy France hold enticing potential for power generation from the
exploitation of marine currents, estimated between 5 and 14 TWh/year. Several
industry players are interested in this energy:
• DCNS took control of Open Hydro and since early 2016 has been testing,
together with EDF, a turbine off Paimpol-Bréhat (500 kW);
• The Engie group first considered installing HyTide turbines supplied by German
manufacturer Voith Hydro; following the withdrawal of this actor, it has turned
to Alstom—General Electric. Alstom, which integrated with GE Power on
1 October 2015, bought the British company Tidal Generation Ltd, which
developed the model Oceade 18 (1.4 MW);
• Sabella has successfully tested a prototype off Benodet (2008–2012) and is now
launching a range of turbines with three power levels. Its D10 model has been
powering the island of Ouessant since 5 November 2015.
318 M. Cruciani
Many of these players must meet the conditions imposed by ADEME in its call for
projects regarding two sites (Raz-Blanchard and Passage du Fromveur). Each
project will receive a grant of EUR 30 million for 4 to 10 machines producing at
least 2.5 GWh per year, benefiting from a guaranteed FiT of EUR 173/MWh. These
first two pilot farms will test the turbine technology as well as the mode of
installation, operation and maintenance. The ultimate goal is to lead to the estab-
lishment of commercial tidal farms and the creation of industries for the manufac-
ture and export of machinery.
Wave energy Wave energy has significant potential around France, generally
estimated at 40 TWh. The technology currently remains at the research stage.
France will open a platform for experimentation near the town of Nantes
(SEM-REV project). Among the various technologies, the CETO process is being
tested on the island of La Réunion.
High-temperature Geothermal France operates a power plant fuelled by hot

water from a volcanic zone in Bouillante (Guadeloupe). It consists of two units,
B1 (4.5 MW) and B2 (11.5 MW). The plant sells its output at a price set by the CRE
for Unit B1 at EUR 137/MWh and traded through an a local purchase agreement for
Unit B2 at EUR 115/MWh (2013 values). Revenues proved to be lower than the cost
of generation, which led to the payment of subsidies for the operation and delayed
the construction of Unit B3 (20 MW planned) (CCE 2016). The government is now
considering an ownership transfer of the entire plant to an independent operator.
An Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) is being tested in Soultz sous Forêts in

France. This technology includes increasing the permeability of rock by stimulation
(hydraulic fracking), injecting cold water into deep underground hot rocks,
collecting hot water and generating electricity on the surface. The first facility in
the world operating on EGS technology, the plant has a capacity of 2.1 MWe.
3.8 Bioenergy That May Produce Heat or Electricity
France has the third largest forest area in Europe after Sweden and Finland, and
wood is the first source of renewable energy in France (Fig. 1). However, the
European Commission announced that it would draft a proposal for a directive to
impose environmental constraints starting in 2020, in connection with solid bio-
mass and biogas. According to the announcement, to be classified as renewable,
these sectors will have to meet strict specifications for discarding products that
require too much energy in the initial stages: collection, processing, routing. Only
products resulting in a 70 % reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would be
deemed renewable. To date, no study has assessed the impact of such a rule on
the development of these two sources.
In French regulations, the term biomass refers to products and by-products of the
forest, wood industries, food and paper (such as black liquor) and agricultural
residues and energy crops.
3.8.1 Electricity from Biomass

In France, the generation of electricity from biomass has been fostered by two
mechanisms:
1. A FiT with a guaranteed purchase price for 20 years. It was updated by the order
of 27 January 2011 at EUR 43.4/MWh. This price is increased by a premium of
between EUR 77.1 and 125.3/MWh for plants with power greater than 5 MW
whose energy efficiency is higher than 50 % and whose share of forest biomass
in the supply exceeds 50 %. This price no longer applies to new installations
(following the decree of 28 May 2016).
2. Tenders supervised by the CRE. Four series of tenders were launched in 2003,
2006, 2009 and 2010 (CRE 1 to 4) for a total of 1243 MW.
The purchase price appears to be insufficient; only facilities operating as

cogenerators that provide good value for the heat achieve financial equilibrium.
By the end of 2015, only seven plants had been completed according to the fixed
FiT, for a total of 62.5 MWe. Tenders have also brought disappointments.
According to the specifications, the projects were rated on the sustainability of
supply, the relevance of the location and the overall energy efficiency. In a signifi-
cant number of cases, the holders of the selected projects failed to follow through on
their commitments, and these projects were abandoned. Figure 11 shows that of the
four tenders, 1243 MWe projects were selected, but only 344 MW was eventually
commissioned. Moreover, the average price seems very high, exceeding EUR
120/MWh at the end of the last three tenders.
At the end of the last tender (CRE 4), the selection of the Gardanne plant among
the winners triggered a controversy. This plant, with a capacity of 150 MWe, will
consume 2300 tons of wood per day, of which 55 % will be imported; this will
exhaust the timber within a distance of 250 km, which may result in conflicts with
other users. No cogeneration is being planned: the heat of the plant will be lost.
Faced with criticism over the fact that previous operations had favoured large
plants, on 8 February 2016 the government launched a new call for tenders (CRE 5)
restricted to projects with a capacity below 25 MW and accessible from 0.3 MW. It
would run for 3 years (2016, 2017 and 2018) and cover 50 MWe/year, of which
10 MWe will be dedicated to projects with a capacity below 3 MW. This tender is
open to biogas projects. Successful applicants will receive additional compensation
designed to give an advantage to facilities that achieve a high efficiency, to those
that meet strict emission limits for NOx and particulate matters, and, as regards
biogas facilities, to those that incorporate livestock manure into their supply.
320 M. Cruciani
Minimum
Average Selected
Planned allowed Commissionned
Price Capacity
Commission Capacity Capacity by 2015
€/MWh MWe MWe MWe
CRE 1 85.5 2006 12 232 77
CRE 2 128.3 2010 5 330 114
CRE 3 145 2012 3 261 95
CRE 4 137 2014 12 420 58
Total 124 3 34 4
Fig. 11 Results of four tenders on biomass generation (AN 2013)
3.8.2 Electricity from Biogas

Despite the importance of the agricultural sector, suggesting a potential for biogas
production assessed at approximately 4800 ktoe, France has only belatedly been
interested in anaerobic digestion. In 2014, France ranked fifth in Europe in biogas
production, with 421 ktoe of primary energy, far behind Germany (7434 ktoe) or
even the Czech Republic (608 ktoe) (ADEME 2015; Eurobserv’ER 2015). The
regulatory provisions being implemented since 2011 nevertheless have begun to
bear fruit. They offer two methods of carrying out a project: either through the use
of biogas for power generation or its purification into biomethane and injection into
the natural gas grid.
Contrary to the rules in force in some countries, notably Germany, French
support mechanisms do not apply to biogas from dedicated crop plants, such as
corn. The rules cap at 25 % the incorporation of inputs from intermediate crops
(cultures intercalaires à vocation energétique) (CIVE).
The development of biogas may benefit from EU Directive 2008/98/EC on
waste, which calls for separate collection and recycling of bio-waste. Eventually,
this collection could become mandatory. The increased use of biogas could then
reduce resources for facilities generating electricity from renewable urban waste
(Sect. 3.3).
There are several types of biogas plants:
1. Treatment of household or industrial waste and agricultural residues (“biogas

farm”);
2. Treatment of sewage sludge from industry or urban water;
3. Capture of landfill gas (the official name for a landfill is a storage facility for
non-hazardous waste, or installations de stockage de déchets non dangereux
(ISDND).
In 2011, a first support mechanism introduced the FiT, with a guaranteed fixed
price for 15 years. Biogas production then took off. At the request of project
holders, the government simplified the mechanism in 2015. It continues to apply
to plants with a capacity of less than 500 kW. The new facilities in mainland France,
whose power output is between 500 kW and 12 MW, are now eligible to the
240
50
40 220
30
20 200
10
0 180
0 60 100
160
140
0 80 300 500
Fig. 12 FiT price calculation for power from biogas (Order 10/30/2015). (In this example, the
purchase price for power generated by a plant with a capacity of 100 kW incorporating 45 % of
manure would be EUR 209/MWh)
additional compensation with a price determined by tender. The aforementioned

CRE 5 tender involves biogas plants.
Figure 12 shows how to calculate the FiT price that applies to plant types 1 and
2 as of 1 December 2015. This price includes a bonus ranging between EUR 0 and
40/MWh proportional to the degree of incorporation of manure from 0 % up to 60 %
of inputs. The price ranges between EUR 220/MWh for a small installation
incorporating over 60 % of manure in its inputs and EUR 165/MWh for a
500 kW installation incorporating no manure.
As in the case of wind energy, the government included in the FiT a political
concern: a bonus to help small farms and especially small breeding farms. With this
support mechanism, about 50 new biogas plants are commissioned every year.
3.8.3 Electricity from the Incineration of Renewable Municipal Waste

Energy recovery from household waste remains underdeveloped in France: it
achieved only 17.9 toe per 1000 inhabitants in 2014, vs. 87.1 in Sweden, for
example. Electricity generation by incineration in waste processing plants
amounted to 1.8 TWh in 2014 (Eurobserv’ER 2015). The revenue from the sale
of electricity and heat represents on average a modest fraction of a plant’s income;
the bulk of resources stem from municipalities, through local taxation.
Currently, facilities that generate electricity from renewable municipal waste
benefit from a FiT, the price of which includes a fixed sum rewarding availability
and a variable sum proportional to the energy supplied. As of 1 June 2016, all new
installations qualify for the additional compensation mechanism. Heat is sold
through local agreements.
322 M. Cruciani
4 Heat
4.1 Overview
By the end of 2014, the share of heat from renewable energy appears to remain
below the level needed to meet the 2020 target communicated to the European
Commission in the National Action Plan; the production only achieves 78 % of the
ideal trajectory. Nevertheless, as shown in Fig. 13, the new targets set in France
after the vote on the law of 17 August 2015 do not mark a turning point.
To comply with these objectives, the system in place relies partly on facilities
producing both heat and electricity. In this case, the support is based on the specific
provisions that exist in favour of co-generation. There provisions were described
earlier in Sect. 3.6. These facilities can also receive investment aid from local
authorities.
For installations that do not generate electricity, support for renewable sources
always takes the form of investment aid, distributed through two channels:
Collective Uses or Professional Use The promotion of heat from renewable

sources is ensured by the Heat Fund, managed by ADEME:
• For large structures (>1000 toe/year), the support is based on tender procedures;
• For intermediate facilities (between 1000 and 100 toe/year), the aid is condi-
tional on a series of criteria to fulfil;
• For small projects (<100 toe/year), the aid comes from the regions.
Former Achievement New target New target 2023

HEAT (ktoe)
target 2020 2014 2018 Low High
Biomass & Renewable Waste 12,600 8,846 12,000 13,000 14,000
Geothermal 250 129 200 400 550
Heat pumps 1,600 1,787 2,200 2,800 3,200
Thermal Solar 817 90 180 270 400
Heat from Biogas 900 111 300 700 900
Biomethane injected into the grid of natural gas (2015) 7 146 688
Total 16,167 10,970 15,026 17,858 19,738
Of which supplied by District Heating 1,044 1,350 1,900 2,300
TRANSPORTS Target 2018 Target 2023

Gasoline 1,6% 3,4%
Advanced Biofuels (%)
Diesel 1% 2,3%
Biomethane for vehicles (ktoe) 60 172
Fig. 13 Former targets, achievements, new targets for heat and biofuels (mainland France)
[Sources: Former target 2020: Arrêtés du 15 décembre 2009 relatifs à la programmation
pluriannuelle des investissements de production de chaleur; Achievement: SOeS Suivi Directive
EnR 2014, SOeS Solaire thermique 2013, Syndicat des Energies renouvelables (SER) Panorama
Biogaz 2015, Syndicat National du Chauffage Urbain Enquête 2014, tableau énergie produite en
GWh; Target 2018 and 2023: Arrêté du 24 Avril 2016 relatif aux objectifs de développement des
énergies renouvelables]
Support
Total of which
Number of RES per year during 20
Investment ADEME
projects years
M€ M€ ktep €/tep
Wood BCIAT 147 867 334 808 20.6
Wood non
762 1295 327 523 31
BCIAT
Geothermal 394 499 106 115 46

Biogas 51 200 31 68 22.9
Thermal
1,590 154 73 7 521
Solar
District
668 565 506 248 102
Heating
Fig. 14 Results of Heat Fund (MEEM 2016)
The results of the Heat Fund over the period 2009–2015 appear excellent
(Fig. 14). The first two lines separate professional uses—Heat from Biomass to
Industry, Agriculture and Tertiary (BCIAT)—and uses in collective housing
(non-BCIAT). The aid by tonne of oil equivalent of heat stemming from wood
remains very modest, between EUR 21 and 31/toe or from EUR 1.8 to 2.8/MWh,
compared with support for renewable electricity whose costs range between EUR
40/MWh (wind with FiT) and EUR 110/MWh (PVs on tender) (CEER 2015).
Individual Uses The promotion of heat from renewable sources is based on

national or regional aid for citizens. Five types of aid are available, the first four
being determined at the national and the latter at the local level:
1. Tax credit for the energy transition (crédit d‘impôt pour la transition energé
tique) (CITE),
2. Reduced value-added tax rate,
3. Eco-interest loan,
4. Aid from the National Housing Improvement Agency (Agence nationale pour
l’amélioration de l’habitat) (ANAH),
5. Aid related to place of residence:
– Local bonus paid by local authorities,
– Temporary exemption from property tax.
Some aid is resource tested, others are intended for owners only. Installation
work must be performed by a qualified installer who has been recognized as
“safeguarding the environment” (reconnu garant de l’environnement) (RGE).
324 M. Cruciani
The Tax Credit for the Energy Transition is the largest form of aid; in 2016, the
amount for this aid reached EUR 8000 for a single person and EUR 16,000 for a
couple.
4.2 Comments on Renewable Heat
Wood In 2013, about seven million primary residences in France used wood for
heating purpose. The aid measures are dedicated not only to new homes but also to
the replacement of old appliances that are inefficient and polluting by new equip-
ment with greater efficiency. In many areas, burning wood in open fires is now
prohibited, and the use of modern appliances is encouraged.
The use of wood as energy competes with other forms of wood recovery: softwood
lumber (carpentry, cabinet making) and industrial wood (chipboard, paper pulp).
These latter forms currently absorb most of the wood sold from the French harvest,
which is not enough to satisfy people’s needs, so the country remains a major
importer of wood. Competition is likely to increase in coming years owing to the
opportunities offered by wood biochemistry, biomaterials and the growth expected
for second-generation biofuels. Achieving the 2020 target will require increasing
availability and stimulate forestry.
Geothermal energy This word refers to the heat of the Earth, available in certain
areas over a hot aquifer, justifying deep geothermal operations. The water temper-
ature ranges between 30 C and 90 C at a depth of 2000 m, which allows direct
recovery of heat, optionally distributed by district heating if the field is large
enough.
About 80 % of geothermal production in France is concentrated in the Paris

Basin, located above the Dogger aquifer that extends over 15,000 km2. The aquifer
supplies 32 district heating networks and 5 isolated installations with water between
56 C and 85 C. Some 180,000 homes are connected (SER 2011). Support for
geothermal energy consists in aid for investment and, when the geothermal source
feeds a district heating network, a commercial incentive to encourage residents to
connect their home to the network, in combination with regulatory constraints.
For collective domestic or professional use, the use of geothermal heat is
promoted by both the Heat Fund, managed by ADEME, and the aid provided by
local authorities. These subsidies also enable the development of smaller
installations (heated greenhouses, farms). Preliminary studies (modelling of the
underground and test drilling) are costly.
Heat pumps With almost 4.4 million heat pumps in service by the end of 2014,
France ranks at the top among European countries. This superior result stems
mainly from the success of reversible aerothermal heat pumps, which are easy to
install and inexpensive and provide both heating in winter and cooling in summer
(nearly 416,000 units sold in 2014). These devices, however, cannot claim the Tax
Credit for the Energy Transition. This tax credit benefits air–water heat pumps
(approximately 70,000 units sold in 2014) and so-called thermodynamic water
heaters, which operate on the principle of the heat pump (72,500 units sold in
2014). (Eurobserv’ER 2015).
Solar thermal The simplicity of installing heat pumps and the advantages of
reversibility won over the French public, who nearly abandoned solar thermal,
despite favourable sunlight conditions in several regions. Only overseas
departments offer high rates of development: they accounted for 81 % of new
surfaces laid in France in 2013.
4.3 Biomethane from Biogas
Despite the advantageous guaranteed purchase price described in Sect. 3.8.2, gen-
eration of electricity from biogas proves to be profitable only for co-generation
installations with good value for the heat. For this condition to be satisfied, the
digester must be set up near an industrial business because there is hardly any
district heating in France’s rural areas. An alternative to electricity generation is to
purify biogas and convert it into biomethane, which can then be injected into a
natural gas grid.
Since 2011, biogas plants injecting biomethane into natural gas grid have
received support in the form of a guaranteed purchase price. For plant types
1 and 2 (Sect. 3.8.2), the base price varies between EUR 95/MWh (gross calorific
value) for injection capacities below 50 m3/h and EUR 64/MWh for a capacity of at
least 350 m3/h. A bonus can be added to the base price, varying in proportion to the
agricultural products incorporated into the inputs and another bonus varying in
proportion to urban waste (Arrêté Biométhane 2011).
Biomethane producers sign a purchase contract with the supplier of their choice.
The difference between the purchase price of biomethane and the natural gas price
on the market is passed on to the end consumer via the so-called biomethane
contribution. Biomethane producers can also receive a GO for each megawatt-
hour they produce. When these GOs are sold, producers retain 25 % of the revenue,
with the rest being used to reduce the biomethane contribution. This provision
seems to suit producers since the GOs issued accounted for 99 % of the production
of biomethane in 2014. However, only 30 % of all GOs issued could be sold.
The valuation of biomethane as motor fuel remains underdeveloped because the
FiT for injection into gas grids seems more attractive. Several experiments have
nevertheless been tried; the largest is located in Forbach on the site of the
Méthavalor factory. It fuels in particular the fleet of commercial vehicles of the
community.
326 M. Cruciani
5 Biofuels
5.1 The Situation in 2016
Although huge efforts are being devoted to the development of electric vehicles, it
appears that compliance with the target set in the National Action Plan for 2020 in
the field of transport relies primarily on biofuels. Given the investments already
made, the first-generation biofuels will continue to play a leading role.
Following the adoption of the first European directive on biofuels (Directive EC
2003/30), France has implemented two support measures:
• A partial tax exemption for biofuels. For several years, biofuels have been totally
exempt from the domestic tax on energy consumption of petroleum products
(taxe intérieure sur la consommation des produits pétroliers) (TICPE); then it
was gradually reintroduced and since 2016 the full rate applies again. To avoid
overproduction, only plants that received ministerial approval benefited from the
tax exemption.
• An incentive to purchase. The general tax on polluting activities (taxe générale
sur les activités polluantes) (TGAP) hits operators who incorporate a biofuel
share of less than a national floor, set at 7 % in 2013 for bioethanol and biodiesel,
then raised to 7.7 % in 2015 for biodiesel (percentages are by volume). This tax
applies to all operators (refiners’ subsidiaries, supermarkets and independent
sellers) and amounts to a quite high penalty.
To speed up the penetration of biofuels, France has gradually raised the ceiling
for incorporating biodiesel in ordinary motor fuel: it was set at 8 % by volume as of
1 January 2015 (vs. 7 % in other European countries, sold under reference B7). The
government also encouraged manufacturers to develop vehicles capable of running
on a fuel containing up to 30 % biodiesel (called B30). These measures have borne
fruit for biodiesel since it achieved a share of 8 % of volume sold since 2013,
propelling France to the forefront of consumer countries, with 2541 ktoe in 2014.
To date, the biodiesel that is consumed in France is derived from esterification,
either with oils from rapeseed and sunflower grown in the country (approximately
50 %) or with imported vegetable oil (also approximately 50 %).
The ceiling for incorporating bioethanol has not changed (10 % by volume in the
entire EU, sold under reference E10), but France requires distributors to set up
pumps for motor fuel, including up to 85 % bioethanol (reference E85, only for
so-called flexible-fuel vehicles). Despite these efforts, bioethanol only accounted
for 6.1 % of sales by the end of 2014. The promotion of E85 failed: its market share
is below 1 % (CCE 2016).
5.2 Biofuel Outlook in France
The outlook for biofuel remains unclear. In the short term, the collapse of oil prices
has pushed biofuels into an unfavourable competitive position. In the longer term,
uncertainty about public policies will constrain investment. Indeed, the new EU
regulation restricts the share of biofuels from food crops (cereals and oilseeds) or
energy crops on farmland to 7 % (bioethanol) or 7.7 % (biodiesel) and requires that
at least 0.5 % of the energy consumed in transport in 2020 comes from advanced
biofuels (Directive 2015/1513). However, no target is being considered for the
following period. In its community framework proposal for 2030, the European
Commission considers it unnecessary to provide for a specific objective in the
transport sector (COM 2014-15 of 22 January 2014), and the European Council on
23 and 24 October 2014 endorsed this option.
Operators therefore lack visibility regarding requirements after 2020. The
biodiesel sector appears particularly vulnerable because the French government is
willing to reduce tax benefits that diesel fuel enjoyed until 2015. Such a move
would favour gasoline-powered vehicles. In addition, current biodiesel producers
are threatened by a new technology: the hydrogenation of vegetable oils. The
product thus obtained, called hydrotreated vegetable oil, mixes more easily with
fossil diesel than that resulting from esterification. It is referred to as “drop-in”
biodiesel. Given its flexibility, this process could facilitate imports of oil produced
outside Europe. Imports are currently hampered by duties introduced at the
European level to fight the dumping practices of certain countries (Argentina,
Indonesia, USA), but these duties should disappear in a few years.
As seen in Fig. 13, France has adopted a target on advanced biofuels (or second-
generation biofuels) for 2020. Several research and demonstration projects give
hope that the industrial stage will be reached soon. Examples:
• The Futurol project aims to develop and validate ethanol production through a
biological process, from lignocellulose, stemming from agricultural, forestry
by-products, dedicated residues or biomass;
• The BioTfueL project, led by the TOTAL group, aims to convert, through a
thermochemical process, lignocellulosic biomass (e.g. straw, forest residues,
dedicated crops) into biodiesel and bio-jet fuel. The project has reached the
demonstration stage with a production launch of the Dunkirk plant scheduled for
late 2016. It comprises three stages: pretreatment, gasification and synthesis;
• The Syndièse project aims to demonstrate the technical and economic feasibility
of a complete chain of biofuel production on a single site, from the collection of
biomass to synthesis gas with the introduction of hydrogen into the process to
optimize performance.
The future of this work will depend on the price of fossil-based oil products, on
the regulatory framework relating to the fight against the emission of greenhouse
gases and on local measures against pollution from motor vehicles. Local
328 M. Cruciani
governments that implement such measures in France, such as the city of Paris,
currently prefer electric engines.
6 Conclusion
Foreign observers have often felt that the French policy on renewable energy was
characterized by hesitation and groping. However, in retrospect, the French record
of the last 10 years seems honourable. Certainly this long period of development,
still unfinished at the time these lines are written, sometimes caused concern among
investors, who want greater legal stability. Yet the reasons for optimism dominate.
After the 2015 vote on a very comprehensive law, in March 2016 France adopted
ambitious targets for renewable sources by 2023. The professionals concerned have
largely expressed satisfaction. The rate at which the implementing texts are
published shows a genuine will to succeed, and tender procedures prepared within
the new regulatory framework have created a momentum in many sectors, as
confirmed by this chapter. Other academic work could complement this one by
analysing the impact of recent laws that strengthen the powers of local officials in
the field of energy, the recent order that facilitates crowdfunding projects and the
considerable effort being made to boost innovative technologies.
References
ADEME. (2015). Agence de l’Environnement et de la Maı̂trise de l’Energie, Estimation des
gisements potentiels de substrats utilisables en méthanisation, Avril 2013.
AN. (2013). Rapport d’information de Mme Rohfritsch et M. Lambert pour la commission du
développement durable et de l’aménagement du territoire de l’Assemblée Nationale (2013),
page 56, except last column: Jean-Pierre Tachet Comité Interprofessionnel du Bois Energie
(CIBE), Conference December 9, 2015 at Montpellier.
Arrêté Biométhane. (2011). Arrêté du 23 Novembre 2011 sur l’achat du biométhane injecté dans le
réseau de gaz naturel.
CCE. (2014). Cour des Comptes, Rapport particulier 71058 sur le Bureau de Recherches
Géologiques et Minières.
CCE. (2016). Cour des Comptes, Les biocarburants: des résultats en progrès, des adaptations
nécessaires, 2016.
CEER. (2015). Council of European Energy Regulators, Status Review of Renewable and Energy
Efficiency Support Schemes in Europe in 2012 and 2013, January 15, 2015.
CGDD. (2015). Commissariat Général au Développement Durable, Chiffres clés des énergies
renouvelables, Edition Décembre 2015.
CRE. (2011). Commission de Régulation de l’Energie (CRE), Appel d’offres portant sur des
installations éoliennes de production d’électricité en mer en France métropolitaine, 11 Juillet
2011, Présentation synthétique du cahier des charges.
CRE. (2012) & (2014). Author’s calculation, based from CRE, Délibérations du 5 Avril 2012 et du
24 Avril 2014.
CRE. (2015). CRE, Délibération du 15 Octobre 2015.
EEA. (2009). European Environment Agency, Europe’s onshore and offshore wind energy
potential.
Eurobserv’ER. (2015). The state of renewable energies in Europe, Edition 2015.
FHE. (2016). Site Internet de l’association professionnelle France Hydro Electricité, rubrique
« Les chiffres clés »: http://www.france-hydro-electricite.fr. Accessed 30 Jun 2016.
MEEM. (2016). Site Internet du Ministère de l’Environnement, de l’Energie et de la Mer, Le bilan
du fonds chaleur. http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/Le-bilan-du-Fonds-chaleur.
html. Accessed 30 Jun 2016.
Order 10/30/2015: Arrêté du 19 Mai 2011 sur l’achat d’électricité produite à partir de biogaz,
modifié par l’arrêté du 30 Octobre 2015.
Order 11/17/2008: Arrêté du 17 Novembre 2008 pour l’énergie éolienne.
Order 11/23/2011: Arrêté du 23 Novembre 2011 sur l’achat du biométhane injecté dans le réseau
de gaz naturel.
PAN. (2012). Plan d’Action National de la France en faveur des énergies renouvelables, 2012.
PV Info. (2016, June). Site Internet « Photovoltaı̈que.info », Historique des tarifs d’achat garantis
and Site Internet CRE.
RTE. (2016). Réseau de Transport d’Electricité (RTE), Bilan électrique 2015, édition de Janvier
2016.
SER. (2011). Syndicat des Energies Renouvelables (SER), La géothermie en France, Mars 2011.
SOeS. (2015). Service de l’Observation et des Statistiques (SOeS), Evolution des parcs éolien
(2000-2014) et photovoltaı̈que (2005-2014), puissance cumulée en fin d’année.
Michel Cruciani is associated with the Centre de

Géopolitique de l’Energie et des Matières Premières
(CGEMP) and with Institut Français des Relations
Internationales (IFRI). He teaches renewable energy in the
master’s program in energy, finance, and carbon at Univer-
sity Paris-Dauphine and is also an independent consultant
working on energy issues. He has had long experience with
Electricité de France, Gaz de France (before it became
Engie) and the French Trade Union CFDT (Federation of
Energy Workers). He was elected member of the board of
Gaz de France. His interests relate to the actions of
European institutions and questions related to the environ-
ment, energy efficiency and the development of renewables.
He graduated from Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Arts et
Métiers.
Marketing Renewable Energy in the United
Kingdom
Catalina Spataru and Bruno Arcuri
Abstract
This chapter focuses on the renewable energy market in the UK. First we discuss
the impact of privatization, then show what preconditions might be important.
The main conclusion drawn from the analysis is that in the UK, as well as in
other countries, new policy frameworks need to guide the transition from an
energy system designed to achieve short-term efficiencies through market oper-
ation to a long-term approach that would embrace new uncertainties. Both
market interests and environmental protection need to be secured in order to
guarantee the levels of investment needed in the UK’s renewable energy market.
Keywords
Markets • Renewables • Regions • UK • Solar • Wind
1 Introduction
The UK is producing most of its electricity from fossil fuels (coal and natural gas).
Figure 1 shows the generation mix in the UK (2015), and Fig. 2 shows the
electricity generation by source in the UK between 1998 and 2015.
In the UK, the high reliance on fossil fuels often provoked a price premium
compared to continental Europe. In recent years we have seen a trade-off between
gas- and coal-based power production in the UK. Indeed the rise in gas prices since
the Fukushima disaster cause the share of natural gas to fall from 46 % in 2010 to
28 % in 2012 in the UK electricity mix. In contrast, the share of coal rose from 28 to
39 % during the same years as a result of falling coal and carbon prices (European
Commission 2012).
C. Spataru (*) • B. Arcuri

UCL Energy Institute, 14 Upper Woburn Place, WC1H 0NN London, UK
e-mail: c.spataru@ucl.ac.uk

332 C. Spataru and B. Arcuri
0.8% 1.4%
5.1% 8.7%
22.3%
0.6%
14.1%
1.9%
29.5%
20.7%
Coal Oil Gas
Fig. 1 Electricity mix in UK 2015 (Data source: DECC 2016)
450000
400000
Other fuels
350000 Pumped Storage
300000 Bioenergy
250000 Offshore Wind

GWh
Wind and Solar

200000
Hydro
150000
Nuclear
100000 Gas
50000 Oil
Coal
0
Fig. 2 Electricity generation by source in UK between 1998 and 2015 (Data source: DECC 2016)
2 Trade
The British Isles are historical net importers of electricity. There are currently four
interconnections in service:
– IFA interconnector to France,

– BritNed interconnector to the Netherlands,
Marketing Renewable Energy in the United Kingdom 333
Fig. 3 Physical electricity 16000

exchanges between Britain
14000
and its neighbours in 2015
(Data source: ENTSOE 2016) 12000
10000
GWh
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
France Ireland Northern Netherlands
Ireland
Exports Imports
– Moyle interconnector to Northern Ireland,

– East–West interconnector to the Republic of Ireland.
Most of the UK’s imports come from France, followed by the Netherlands.
Ireland and Northern Ireland import their electricity from Britain (Fig. 3).
3 Market Structure
3.1 Transmission and Distribution Network
England and Wales have an ownership unbundled transmission system operator

(TSO). An independent TSO, National Grid, owns and operates the transmission
network (National Grid 2016) (Fig. 4).
Scotland follows a legal ownership unbundled model. Scottish Power and
Scottish and Southern Energy are vertically integrated companies that are involved
in the whole electricity chain, from generation to retail, and manage the transmis-
sion network through their subsidiaries (respectively Scottish Power Energy
Networks and Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission).
The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) is in charge of the regulation
of the energy market in Great Britain. It is a non-ministerial governmental depart-
ment created in 2000 by the merging of Offer and Ofgas (Birchall and Dunstan
2010). On the distribution side, the UK counts seven DSOs (Fig. 5).
Private companies supply energy to consumers and consumers can choose which
companies they buy energy from.
3.2 Generation and Retail
Six main companies, often called the Big Six, dominate the electricity supply in the
UK. The Big Six are:
Fig. 4 Electricity transmission network operators in UK (Adapted after National Grid 2016)
– British Energy (subsidiary of Centrica),

– Scottish and Southern Energy,
– ScottishPower (subsidiary of Iberdrola),
– RWE Npower,
– EDF energy,
– EON.
According to Sheffield Energy Resources Information Services (SERIS), in

2012 the Big Six controlled 96 % of the retail residential electricity market and
82 % of the non-residential electricity market. The rest of the supply is ensured by
21 smaller retailers (SERIS 2012). As the market opened to competition in the late
1990s, which is earlier than in most European countries, the switching rate between
suppliers is one of the highest in Europe (15 % in 2011) (European Commission
2012). Regarding generation capacities, SERIS estimated that 74 companies owned
Fig. 5 Electricity distribution network operators in UK (Adapted after National Grid 2016)
about 94 % of the generating capacity in 2012.1 SERIS also determined that the Big
Six owned 71.3 % of the total electricity generating capacities in 2012 (SERIS
2012).
4 History of the Market
From 1990 to 2001, in England and Wales, wholesale electricity was traded through
an electricity pool mechanism. The pool mechanism was relatively simple. Each
electricity producer was asked to inform the pool of the electricity prices and
quantities that it could provide. National Grid planned the schedule of generation
based on this information and a day-ahead estimate of the electricity demand and
calculated the pool price. National Grid was also in charge of balancing the real-
time demand and supply (Simmonds 2002). The New Electricity Trading
Arrangements (NETA) replaced the pool in March 2001. NETA installed a classical
bilateral electricity trading market composed of a forward and future market, short-
1
Based on the last Seven Year Statement of National Grid combined with DUKES estimates.
24 hours 1 hour Half hour

before delivery before delivery before delivery
Forward/Futures Short-term bilateral Balancing Imbalance

contract market market (exchange) mechanism selement
1 3 4
1. Generators, suppliers and traders buy and sell electricity;

2. Noficaon of contract volumes (to Selement) and Final Physical Noficaon to Naonal Grid
(as System Operator);
3. Naonal Grid (as System Operator) accepts offers and bids for system and energy balancing;
4. Selement of cash flows arising from the balancing process.
Fig. 6 Organisation of electricity markets (Adapted after National Grid 2011)
term exchanges, a balancing mechanism and a settlement process (Simmonds

2002).
On 1 April 2005, the NETA were transformed to include Scotland in the scheme
and became the British Electricity Trading and Transmission Arrangements
(BETTA) (National Grid 2011). BETTA covers four types of electricity markets:
the forward/future markets, the power exchange markets, the balancing mechanism
market and the ancillary services market. Their organisation is described in Fig. 6.
In terms of selling electricity, 90 % is sold through the forward/future market, 3 %
through the power exchanges and 2–3 % through the balancing mechanism market
(Wilson et al. 2011).
The markets operate on a half-hourly basis. The only mechanism mandatory for
all companies is the imbalance settlement.
The UK has three power exchanges, which is rare in Europe:
– APX Power UK was created in 2000 and was first named UKPX (APX 2016),
– N2EX was launched in 2010 by NASDAQ OMX Commodities and Nord Pool
Spot for UK contracts,
– ICE was formed in 2000 and is the first network of exchanges and
clearinghouses in the world.
The energy markets are regulated by the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority
(GEMA), which is the organisation responsible for setting strategy and policy
priorities, making decisions on regulatory matter such as price control and enforce-
ment. GEMA operates through the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem).
Ofgem’s principal objective is to protect electricity and gas consumers by
promoting competition and regulating and delivering government schemes.

According to Ofgem (2016), the scenario for renewable energy in the UK can be
described by the following facts and figures:
– In 2015/16, 90,283,516 Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) were issued

for eligible renewable electricity generated under the Renewables Obligation;
– By June 2016, 771,998 solar panel installations were registered for the feed-in
tariff;
– The generation capacity from Renewables Obligation–accredited UK offshore
wind farms is 5 GW;
– The investment in offshore transmission projects totals £2.9 billion to date,
connecting 4.4 GW of offshore wind.
5 Renewable Energy Source Integration: Challenges
Renewable energy sources (RESs) (wind and solar) are difficult to predict due to
their variability. Wind speeds can vary from minutes to seconds and tend to be
weakly correlated with high power demand: cold, windless winter evenings and hot,
windless summer days (Grimston 2014). The Royal Academy of Engineering
(2014) points out that considering consented and under construction wind projects,
the UK has a total of 20.7 GW of wind capacity.
The electric system becomes exposed to weather risk when a significant propor-
tion of the generating capacity comes from intermittent renewables. Darwall (2015)
connects the weather risk and uncertainties inherent in farming to the reason the
government heavily subsidises farmers, comparing this scenario to subsidies sup-
plied to electricity generators. The report states that severe market distortions were
introduced to the energy market due to government interventions to support invest-
ment in renewables, which transferred weather risks and system costs to the rest of
the energy system. This would mean that renewables might increase the amount of
subsidies and support of nuclear and combined-cycle gas turbines (CCGT) to keep
the lights on.
Wind power substitutes the costs of fuel inputs, offering very low variable costs
but making it a capital-intensive electricity generation source (Hughes 2012). When
the wind blows at optimal speeds, wind farms force coal and gas power plants to
reduce their output because they present higher variable costs. This scenario
produces adverse impacts on prices and costs for thermal power plant investors.
On the other hand, investors in wind and solar power are paid for the energy
produced by the weather and, as stated by Darwall (2015), might even be paid
without producing any energy in certain circumstances.
A study done by Ofgem (2009) assumed that onshore wind capital costs (£1.2 m/
MW) are twice the size of that of CCGT (£0.6 m/MW), and for offshore wind this
number is nearly five times that size (£2.8 m/MW). A report by UKERC (2010) also
states that the capital costs of offshore wind have doubled in 5 years from approxi-
mately £1.5 m/MW in 2004 to over £3.0 m/MW in 2009, attributing this increase to
factors such as commodity prices. Renewables also require transmission

infrastructures to be built or reinforced. According to RenewableUK (2012),
10–20 % of the capital costs of developing an offshore wind farm are associated
with the electricity transmission infrastructure. The UK government estimates a
substantial investment in offshore networks worth up to £15 billion will be spent by
2020 to connect rounds 1, 2 and 3 of offshore wind (House of Commons 2010).
6 Incentive and Market-Distortion Effects
Policy interventions in the electricity market create unintended distortions that

require further interventions. In this sense, subsidised intermittent electricity
introduced to the market depresses the profitability of other generators and not
only lowers the returns from investing in replacement capacity necessary to main-
tain continuity of supply but also makes it harder to predict (Darwall 2015). When
there is low demand and high penetration of renewables, negative energy prices
might appear, as observed in Denmark, Germany, Canada and the USA
(California).
A report by OECD/NEA (2012) states that these distortions are likely to become
more pronounced as wind and solar capacities are expanded. Two effects caused by
the introduction of renewables on the market might lead to underinvestment in
dispatchable technologies and, therefore, a decrease in security of supply at times of
unfavourable meteorological conditions:
– Compression effect: Lower and more volatile wholesale energy prices

impacting investment returns of conventional generating assets, which is
amplified by favourable weather conditions for renewables;
– Pecuniary effect: Renewables investors are subsidised and, therefore, isolated
from the effects of their output on the market, while conventional generators do
not affect renewables generators.
7 Enhancing Competition and Protecting Consumers
Subsidies for intermittent renewables have damaged the functioning of the electric-
ity market (Darwall 2015). An effective market would require removing subsidies
and ensuring that renewables account for the risks they bring to the system. To
accelerate the return to market pricing:
– Price support and incentives for planned renewable projects should be removed;
– Legal means to remove or reduce price support and obligations to purchase
renewable power should be deployed;
– The costs of grid expansion and reinforcements should be allocated to
renewables assets, taking them out of the National Grid’s Asset Value;
– A revised and updated pool should be designed with international experience so

that all generators submit bids to sell their energy production.
Reviving the pool would facilitate the entry of other generators into the market
by reducing market barriers and the power of the Big Six. This right/obligation to
sell at the pool’s bid price would encourage renewable power producers to deal with
conventional producers and internalise the intermittency costs of renewables,
removing the need for a capacity market run by the government.
The structure of electricity prices is complex owing to the various tariffs. Green
electricity suppliers have different rates for their electricity production, depending
on the region. The predominant green tariffs on the market are green source (which
buy electricity from suppliers marketing renewable generation) and green fund
(customers voluntarily contribute money into a fund supporting new renewable
initiatives).
8 Analysis of Proposed Electricity Market Reform
The electricity market is in need of wide-ranging reform (DECC 2011). The

government’s vision for the Electricity Market Reform (EMR), which is to establish
a market that delivers secure power, an increasing share of renewables and carbon
reduction simultaneously, will require a number of policy responses. According to
Pollitt and Haney (2013), the increase in government intervention in the electricity
market in recent years was motivated by sound reasons. The UK has set an 80 %
carbon reduction target by 2050, compared to 1990 levels, as part of the 2008
Climate Change Act, and the electricity sector is key to the decarbonisation
strategy.
There were four elements in the EMR proposed by DECC (2011):
– Contracts for difference (CFD),

– Carbon price support (CPS),
– Capacity market (CM),
– Emissions performance standard (EPS).
Achieving carbon and renewable targets put the electricity sector in line for
large-scale decarbonisation. Pollitt (2012) describes the logic behind the four
elements and questions whether this is good economics. Fixed prices for low carbon
generation, or CFD, offer certainty and are high enough to support nuclear as well.
CPS raises the price of carbon for fossil generation and encourages switching and
benefits from reduced CfD payments and raised tax revenue. The CM allows fossil
generation to provide back up for intermittent renewables via an availability
payment, even though fossil generation is pushed to the margin and has low plant
utilisation. EPSs then ensure that fossil generation plants are not built in the event
that price-based incentives are not right. Pollitt (2012) also highlights that the
motivation for EMR clearly lies with the Committee on Climate Change, 5-year
carbon budgeting and the 2008 Climate Change Act.
The key objective of the EMR is to guarantee the level of investment needed in
new low-carbon generation capacity and infrastructure in the most cost-effective
way possible (DECC 2011). The white paper estimates investments of up to £110
billion in electricity generation (£75 billion) and transmission and distribution (£35
billion) by 2020. Studies prepared by Cambridge Economic Policy Associates
(CEPA) and presented in the white paper suggests that using CfD would lead to
an overall saving of around £2.5 billion over the period up to 2030.
The EMR key dates are as follows:
– November 2008: The 2008 Climate Change Act is introduced. The Committee
on Climate Change is established as an independent body to advise the govern-
ment on meeting carbon budgets;
– December 2008: The Committee on Climate Change publishes the first report,
setting the electricity sector as key to the decarbonisation strategy, including
heat and transport;
– October 2009: The Committee on Climate Change First Progress Report details
key EMR elements;
– May 2010: Coalition agreement specifies four elements of EMR;
– Dec 2010: DECC publishes EMR proposals;
– November 2012: Energy bill introduced to House of Commons;
– December 2013: Energy Act 2013 introduces CFD and a CM
The “2010 to 2015 government policy: UK energy security” policy paper, issued
by DECC (2015), states that the EMR currently operates two key mechanisms: CFD
and CM.
8.1 Contracts for Difference
The EMR proposes a system whereby the government contracts electricity at fixed
prices for a long period to be supplied by low-carbon generators. The government
would pay the difference between the electricity average wholesale price and the
price established in the contract. The EMR white paper indicates that the EU
Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) carbon price has been volatile or too low to
encourage investment in low-carbon electricity generation in the UK.
8.2 Capacity Market
A CM is a mechanism that introduces payments to generators that maintain

availability and supply electricity to the market when required, thereby
guaranteeing security of supply. At high levels of renewables, a CM might encour-
age small intermittent generators that do not contract back-up generation directly
with fossil generators. The practical problem with CMs is that it is not clear who
determines the level of capacity and how they determine it.
9 UK Electricity Market Reform and the EU
The UK EMR has been designed for the country’s electricity market and targets;
however, the national electricity market operates in a European context. Keay
(2013) points out that there is a tension, and possibly an incompatibility, in the
idea of separating the national energy and emission goals from the single European
electricity market. As described in the last section, the UK EMR proposes a system
in which liberalisation and environmental concerns transform the electricity sector
into a public/private partnership, whereby the government (not the markets) defines
the country’s generating mix.
The EMR white paper claims that without the EMR, the electricity sector would
have emissions intensity in 2030 of over three times the level advised by the
Committee on Climate Change. Although this intervention in the market might be
needed to support the development of low-carbon power generation, it goes against
the concept of a single market in which the sources with the lowest costs, indepen-
dent of country of origin, should be able to compete across the European market.
Other EU countries also have energy and emission goals, but the UK’s renewables
targets are still seen as among the most ambitious. This might result in a compli-
cated or compromised operation of the European single market.
Legal issues might arise from the reforms since they are designed to support
specific sources of electricity generation. State aids such as subsidies or other forms
of support of member states of the EU like the UK are bound to the EU State Aid
rule. The commission can reject or modify proposed measures for state aids under
EU law. According to DECC (2012), the UK government is designing the EMR to
be consistent with European legislation. The policy review document also
highlights that the UK government is working closely with the EU energy regu-
latory authorities group ACER and the EU transmission system operators group
ENTSO-E to implement both the CFD and CMs.
Keay (2013) also raises questions related to specific elements of the EMR. As the
UK approach points to a permanent involvement of the government in the electric-
ity market, the longer the duration of the aid, the more likely it will generate
distortions in a competitive marketplace. In the case of imports, it might be more
difficult to maintain a certain UK scheme when contracting output from plants in
other countries in Europe. It is also difficult to assess the contract of CMs outside
the UK as in principle these auctions can be extended to other places in Europe;
however, the UK’s system might not be prepared to rely on non-domestic CMs.
National CMs are more likely to serve national needs and create two separate
income streams for generators (capacity and energy payments), lowering the
average energy price and creating potential distortions when markets with and
without CMs are coupled. A European solution would need to address the various
issues related to the operation and specifics of national markets and power
exchanges.
10 Discussions and Conclusions: Lessons for the UK
The UK implemented the CFD and CMs to address environmental and energy
challenges, employing the market system to engage the private sector in investing
in renewable energy. Unfortunately, CFD and CM can attract investors who are
more focused on guaranteed rewards than on business innovations that could
eventually reduce costs (Whitmill 2012). This guaranteed remuneration might
undermine the idea that businesses need to think outside the box to ensure profit-
ability (Onifade 2016). As a solution, the government might adjust the policy to
encourage innovation, as has been discussed by Bolton and Foxon (2015), Finon
(2013) and Kozlov (2014).
There are concerns about the structure of this hybrid system where the govern-
ment, as the administrator of a market system, would be transferring the burden of
financing the currently unstable renewable energy economy to the private sector
(Darwall 2015). The author defends the idea that the EMR is the market without its
discipline, combined with the inefficiency of the state without financial control and
accountability. The electricity sector becomes a public/private partnership analogue
to the Private Finance Initiative (PFI), existing in a zone where the state controls but
is not financially accountable for the costs, which are paid by consumers, not
taxpayers.
Onifade (2016) supports these concerns but highlights that, compared to previ-
ous regimes, the government’s role in the CFD/CM system appears to be minimal.
The central issue surrounding the influence of neoclassical economics on energy
policy thinking is therefore profit maximisation versus public interest. It is accept-
able throughout the world that governments should protect the public interest by
performing regulatory and monitoring functions within the energy sector. In this
sense, although the criticism is plausible in terms of profitability of the investment
in the energy sector, the EMR in the form of the CFD and CM policies clearly
considers environmental protection the priority. Bolton and Foxon (2015) argue
that in the UK, as well as in other countries, new policy frameworks need to guide
the transition from an energy system designed to achieve short-term efficiencies
through market operation to a long-term approach that would embrace new
uncertainties.
Both market interests and environmental protection need to be protected to
guarantee the levels of investment needed in the UK’s renewable energy market.
Scholars (Blyth et al. 2015; Bolton and Foxon 2015; Finon 2013; Kozlov 2014;
Kannan 2009; Levi and Pollitt 2015; Pye et al. 2015) have addressed some aspects
of this issue.
References
APX. (2016). APX Power UK. Accessed July 25, 2016, from http://www.apxgroup.com/trading-
clearing/apx-power-uk
Birchall, D., & Dunstan, A. (2010). The evolving role of Ofgem. Accessed July 25, 2016, from
http://www.utilityweek.co.uk/news/the-evolving-role-of-ofgem/766472#.U2icjvl_s_Y
Blyth, W., McCarthy, R., & Gross, R. (2015). Financing the UK Power Sector: Is the money
available? Energy Policy, 87, 607–622.
Bolton, R., & Foxon, T. (2015). A socio-technical perspective on low carbon investment
challenges—Insights for UK energy policy. Environmental Innovation and Societal
Transitions, 14, 165–181.
Darwall, R. (2015). Central planning with market features. Surrey: Centre for Policy Studies.
DECC. (2011). Planning our electric future: A white paper for secure, affordable and low-carbon
electricity. Accessed July 25, 2016, from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/
uploads/attachment_data/file/48129/2176-emr-white-paper.pdf
DECC. (2012). Electricity market reform: Policy overview. Accessed July 25, 2016, from https://
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/65634/7090-electricity-
market-reform-policy-overview-.pdf
DECC. (2015). 2010 to 2015 Government policy: UK energy security. Accessed July 25, 2016,
from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-government-policy-uk-
energy-security/2010-to-2015-government-policy-uk-energy-security#appendix-5-electricity-
market-reform-emr.
DECC. (2016). National statistics energy trends: Electricity. Accessed July 25, 2016, from https://
www.gov.uk/government/statistics/electricity-section-5-energy-trends
ENTSOE. (2016). Statistical database. Accessed July 25, 2016, from https://www.entsoe.eu/data/
data-portal/Pages/default.aspx
European Commission. (2012). Energy markets in the European Union in 2011. Luxembourg:
Publications Office of the European Union.
Finon, D. (2013). The transition of the electricity system towards decarbonisation: The need for
change in the market regime. Climate Policy, 13, 130–147.
Grimston, M. (2014). The full costs of generating electricity. Journal of Power and Energy, 228
(3), 357–367.
House of Commons. (2010). The future of Britain’s electricity network. London: House of
Commons.
Hughes, G. (2012). The performance of wind farms in the United Kingdom and Denmark. London:
Renewable Energy Foundation.
Kannan, R. (2009). Uncertainties in key low carbon power generation technologies—Implication
for UK decarbonisation targets. Applied Energy, 86, 1873–1886.
Keay, M. (2013). UK Electricity market reform and the EU. Accessed July 25, 2016, from https://
www.oxfordenergy.org/publications/uk-electricity-market-reform-and-the-eu/
Kozlov, N. (2014). Contracts for difference: Risks faced by generators under the new renewables
support scheme in the UK. Journal of World Energy Law and Business, 7(3), 282–286.
Levi, P., & Pollitt, M. (2015). Cost trajectories of low carbon electricity generation technologies in
the UK: A study of cost uncertainty. Energy Policy, 87, 48–59.
National Grid. (2011). National Electricity transmission system seven year statement. Accessed
July 20, 2016, from https://www2.nationalgrid.com/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?
id¼43281
National Grid. (2016). What we do: Electricity. Accessed July 25, 2016, http://www2.nationalgrid.
com/About-us/What-we-do/Electricity
OECD/NEA. (2012). Nuclear energy and renewables: System effects in low-carbon electricity
systems. Accessed July 25, 2016, from https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2012/7056-sys
tem-effects.pdf
Ofgem. (2009). Project discovery: Energy market scenarios. Ofgem. Accessed July 25, 2016,
from https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/ofgem-publications/. . ./discoveryscenarioscondocfinal.pdf
Ofgem. (2016). Infographic: Promoting a sustainable energy future. Accessed July 25, 2016, from
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications-and-updates/infographic-promoting-sustainable-energy-
future
Onifade, T. T. (2016). Hybrid renewable energy support policy in the power sector: The contracts
for difference and capacity market case study. Energy Policy, 95, 390–401.
Pollitt, M. (2012). Electricity market reform: Will it work and if so how? University of Cambridge,
Energy Policy Research Group. Accessed July 25, 2016, from http://www.eprg.group.cam.ac.
uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/BeesleyLecturePollitt081112.pdf
Pollitt, M., & Haney, A. (2013). Dismantling a competitive electricity sector: The UK’s Electricity
Market reform. The Electricity Journal, 26(10), 8–16.
Pye, S., Sabio, N., & Strachan, N. (2015). An integrated systematic analysis of uncertainties in UK
energy transition pathways. Energy Policy, 87, 673–684.
RenewableUK. (2012). Potential for offshore transmission cost reductions. A report to The Crown
Estate. Accessed July 25, 2016, from https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/media/5709/
RenewableUK%20Potential%20for%20offshore%20transmission%20cost%20reductions.pdf
Royal Academy of Engineering. (2014). WIND ENERGY implications of large-scale deployment
on the GB electricity system. London: Royal Academy of Engineering.
SERIS. (2012). Who owns the UK Electricity Generating Industry—and does it matter? Chester-
field: SERIS.
Simmonds, G. (2002). Regulation of the UK Electricity Industry. Bath: The University of Bath.
UKERC. (2010). Great Expectations: The cost of offshore wind in UK waters—understanding the
past and projecting the future. UKERC. Accessed July 25, 2016, from http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/
asset/967F73E3-E952-4CF7-B6C04BC2E978B016/
Whitmill, C. (2012). Is UK Energy policy driving energy innovation or stifling it? Energy &
Environment, 23, 993–1004.
Wilson, I. G., McGregor, P. G., Infield, D. G., & Hall, P. J. (2011). Grid-connected renewables,
storage and the UK electricity market. Renewable Energy, 36, 2166–2170.
Catalina Spataru is a Lecturer in Energy Systems and

Networks at UCL Energy Institute in London. Her main
research interests are in energy systems integration and
operation, whole energy system modeling with forecasting
for future years, impact of renewable energy sources in
systems, coupling energy markets, and resource nexus. She
has been involved in and led projects funded by industry,
research councils, and other funding bodies. In addition, she
has supervised PhD students, teaching a smart energy
systems module for MSc students at UCL, and is currently
Course Director for MRes in energy demand studies.
Marketing Renewable Energy in Italy
Simona Bigerna, Carlo Andrea Bollino, and Paolo Polinori
Abstract
Following the abandonment of nuclear power with a post-Chernobyl referen-
dum, Italian energy policy has created a culture in favor of renewables devel-
oped by entrepreneurs and paid for by end users in the form of subsidies. This
has led to the success in Italy of incentives for the use of renewables, which in
2015 already met targets set for 2020. Focusing on the Italian case, this chapter
initially describes the legal framework and, in particular, the incentive
mechanisms and then analyzes the impact of renewables in the vertically
integrated Italian electricity market with policy implications. The main results
highlight that the massive spread of renewable energy sources (RES) has
changed the attitude of policymakers from a command-and-control system to a
more simplified and market-oriented approach. In particular, given the past
intensive financial efforts, new legislation started to curb new RES investment
by setting clear caps on the total financing allotments to the incentive policy.
Furthermore, the massive injection of RESs has highlighted the inadequacy of
the current electric market design. Finally, the large-scale penetration of RES
into everyday life in Italy has increased consumer awareness of green electricity,
stimulating a new quest for green electricity and better climate conditions.
Keywords
Support schemes • Electricity market • Incentive mechanism • Willingness to
pay • Green electricity products
S. Bigerna (*)
Department of Economics, University of Perugia, Via A. Pascoli, 20, 06123 Perugia, Italy
e-mail: simona.bigerna@unipg.it

346 S. Bigerna et al.
1 Introduction
The story of renewables in Italy starts with the radical change in energy strategy
following the abandonment of nuclear power with the post-Chernobyl referendum.
Given the growing demand for electricity in the 1990s, policymakers have focused
their efforts on the development of renewable energy sources (RES) for generating
electricity from private companies that are independent of the state monopoly.
The policy was designed to encourage investment incentives in the capital
account (capital subsidy) granted for a long enough period of time to individuals
and to compel the public monopoly to purchase electricity produced from RES
(RES-E). The Italian policy has favoured renewables’ development through sub-
sidy schemes paid by end users. This has allowed for the success in Italy of
incentives for the use of renewables, following EU directives of 1997 and 2003,
that led to Italy’s energy policy.
The development of renewables has led to the setting of new ambitious targets
for the electricity system worldwide. In Italy, RES have been growing consistently
at a fast rate over the last 5 years, producing both negative and positive
consequences. More expensive bills, grid problems, the potential losses from
competition due to the crowding out of combined-cycle power plants set off against
the positive effects of RES deployment related to climate change mitigation. RES
have caused a new scenario to emerge in which a novel strategy is required to
increase sustainability, the integration of RES into energy systems, promote
innovation, and improve competition in the electricity market. This new strategy
requires a deep knowledge of the institutional context in which RES have been
developed and a constant monitoring of the energy scenario in relation to national
and European targets. Furthermore, given the more challenging European targets, it
is crucial to assess the feasibility of such targets in a scenario where governments
reduce RES subsidies, thereby raising the degree of liberalization in the renewable
sector.
In the light of the new European scenario, in this chapter we deeply analyze the
Italian institutional context in the primary and retail markets, highlighting the main
consequences of the deployment of RES. In addition, the supply and demand sides
are analyzed to evaluate the financial sustainability of the challenging European
environmental policies. The chapter is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the
legal framework, focusing on the incentive mechanisms. Section 3 analyzes the
impact of renewables in the vertically integrated Italian electricity market. The
chapter concludes with Sect. 4, which presents policy implications.
2 Legal Framework
Italy implemented EU Directive 96/92/EC only in 1999, with the launch of Legis-
lative Decree 79/98, which came into force on 1 April 1999 (known as the Bersani
Decree, after the minister of industry at the time). The Bersani Decree was
important for the Italian electricity system because it imposed an obligation beyond
Marketing Renewable Energy in Italy 347
the minimum required by the EU directive to vertically integrated companies. In

particular, it forced the monopolist ENEL to create independent companies for
production, transmission, distribution, and sales to eligible customers. In addition,
the Bersani Decree provided for the establishment of two agencies: (1) a RES
operator (GSE, Gestore dei Servizi Energetici), which manages the payment of
incentives to RES producers and is authorized to sell RES directly to the power
exchange market, and (2) an electricity market operator (GME, Gestore dei Mercati
Energetici), which manages the electricity market (the so-called power exchange)
by organizing an auction system to meet the demand and supply of electricity in
order to determine which production facilities will satisfy demand and how much
will be paid; it also manages the market for energy efficiency certificates and that of
emissions trading, that is, trading in CO2 emission certificates.
The strong push for ownership unbundling and the obligation to promote RES
are the driving forces behind RES deployment. In fact, new independent producers
have started to become profitable in RES generation, and this has created a mass
diffusion of entrepreneurial spirit. The growth of traditional energy source con-
sumption together with the growth in demand and simultaneous increased attention
on the sustainability of the energy system in Italy have kicked off a search for
alternative sources of energy. RES have problems, such as greater land use, higher
costs compared to plants powered by fossil fuels, and intermittency, which require
storage systems, active management of networks, and integration with other
sources.
On the retail market, the large-scale development of RES-E production places
some new burdens in terms of transparency and competition in the electricity
market, as highlighted by the Italian Regulatory Authority for Electricity Gas and
Water, henceforth referred to as the Regulatory Authority (2010). In particular, the
Regulatory Authority has stressed the need for a classification system that is
comprehensible with respect to the several offers/bids of green contracts available
in the Italian market. Such a classification system should be able to deal with two
main problems: the negative perceptions of RES caused by a lack of knowledge of
RES and RES-E by consumers and the low level of transparency of offers/bids.
2.1 Incentive Regulation
In Italy several regulatory frameworks have been created to promote RES, such as
green certificates (GC), all-inclusive feed-in tariffs, simplified purchase and resale
arrangements, net metering, and feed-in premiums.
2.1.1 The Mechanism of the Green Certificates

The mechanism of the GC (Fig. 1) is a rather complex one of “obligations” imposed
on the producers of energy from fossil fuels and “benefits” offered to producers
from RES. The GC system was introduced by the Bersani Decree, which ordered
companies that produce or import electricity from non-RES to feed in, starting from
Fig. 1 Scheme of mechanism of green certificates (GSE)
2001, a share of electricity generated by new or repowered plants, supplied by RES,

and entered into service after 1 April 1999.
Producers of fossil fuels are required every year to inject into the energy system
a certain percentage of their production as renewable energy. If they do not, they
must buy a GC from a RES supplier. In this way, RES producers are granted every
year a GC for each megawatt-hour produced, which they may trade, that is, sell to
producers of fossil fuels who did not fulfill their obligation. In Italy, the government
determines the percentage of obligation and the reference price. The share of RES,
initially set at 2 % of energy in excess of 100 GWh, net of cogeneration, of plants’
self-consumption and exports, was increased after 2002 with specific decrees, as
required by the Bersani Decree, to limit greenhouse gas emissions and meet the
country’s international commitments to the Kyoto Protocol.
Legislative Decree 387/03, which implements Directive 2001/77/EC, fixed the
increase at 0.35 % per year for the period 2004–2006, while the Regulation 244/07
(2008 Budget Regulation) raised the annual increase to 0.75 % for 2007–2012.1
The production of RES-E in plants that started operating or were repowered after
1 January 2008, however, is entitled to the certification of renewable generation for
the first 15 years of operation. As for all RES, with the exception of photovoltaics
(PV), the 2008 Annual Budget Law makes a distinction between plants with an
average nominal power greater than 1 MW and plants of an average nominal power
not exceeding 1 MW, for which it is possible, upon request, to opt for the
all-inclusive feed-in tariff. In the case of plants with an average nominal power
greater than 1 MW, the new incentive system is based on the issuance of GC
by GSE.
The quantity of GC is calculated by multiplication coefficients differentiated for
each specific type of RES for 15 years. To ensure the absorption of the GC by the
1
According to the provisions of Regulation 244/07, the RES-E in plants that started operating or
were repowered between 1 April 1999 and 31 December 2007 is entitled to certification of
production from RES for the first 12 years of operation.
Table 1 Evolution of green certificates (1 GC ¼ 1 MWh) (calculated based on GSE data)

Mandatory rate
Year Energy subject to mandatory quota (TWh) (%) Number of GC
2002 161.62 2.00 3,232,400
2003 182.03 2.00 3,643,200
2004 208.45 2.00 4,145,800
2005 193.75 2.35 4,553,073
2006 201.97 2.70 5,456,337
2007 190.11 3.05 5,798,350
2008 187.00 3.80 7,106,189
2009 187.22 4.55 8,518,286
2010 155.48 5.30 8,204,370
2011 147.84 6.05 8,944,202
2012 170.69 6.80 11,607,230
2013 168.11 7.55 12,692,129
market, the legislation determined that, starting from 2008 until the minimum
coverage target of 25 % of RES-E is reached, GSE, at the request of the producer,
should withdraw the GC in excess of demand and leave only those necessary to
fulfill the obligation for the minimum rate of the previous year.
The GC mechanism was in operation from 2002 to 2012 (Table 1) and was
abandoned for plants entering into operation after 31 December 2012.
2.1.2 Mechanism of All-Inclusive Feed-In Tariff

The all-inclusive feed-in tariff is a national scheme applicable to RES-E plants
(excluding solar plants) commissioned after 31 December 2007 and with a nominal
real power of less than 1 MW (200 MW for onshore wind plants). The all-inclusive
tariff was introduced by the 2008 financial reform and then completed by the
ministerial decree of 18 December 2008 (Renewables Decree) and by the resolution
ARG/elt 1/09 of the Regulatory Authority. The tariff benefit is designed to promote
small plants and is granted over a period of 15 years, during which its rate remains
fixed and based on the amount of electricity fed into the grid, for all plants
commissioned by 31 December 2012. It is the first mechanism in Italy that is
differentiated by type of RES (Table 2).
According to Legislative Decree 28/11, the all-inclusive feed-in tariff remains
constant for the entire entitlement period for all plants (Fig. 2) entering into
operation by 31 December 2012; the tariff applies “also to biogas plants owned
by farms or managed in connection with agricultural, food, farming and forestry
that have entered into commercial operation before 1 January, 2008”.
This represents an alternative to the GC scheme, so the right of option between
GC and the all-inclusive tariff is exercised upon submitting an application for
RES-E qualification. Before the end of the support period, only one transition is
allowed from one support scheme to the other; in this case, the duration of the
Table 2 All-inclusive feed-in rate (calculation based on GSE data)

All-inclusive feed-in rate
Renewable energy sources (Eurocent/kWh)
Wind (P < 200 kW) 30
Geothermal 20
Wave and tidal 34
Hydro (other than the one indicated in previous point) 22
Biomass, biogases, and bioliquids complying with 28
(EC) Regulation 73/09
Landfill gas, sewage treatment plant gas, biogases, and 18
bioliquids complying with (EC) Regulation 73/09
3000
2709
2000
1728
1246
1000 797
429
153
0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Fig. 2 Number of plants in all-inclusive feed-in regime (calculation based on GSE data)
period of eligibility for the new support scheme is reduced by the period of
eligibility that has already elapsed under the previous scheme.
2.1.3 Mechanism of Simplified Purchase and Resale Arrangements

The mechanism of simplified purchase and resale arrangements, introduced
1 January 2008, is not a subsidy but a facilitation of electricity sale to the grid.
The mechanism of simplified purchase and resale arrangements for power produc-
tion was established by Regulatory Authority Decision 280/07 and by the
“Modalities and technical and economic conditions for the withdrawal of electricity
in accordance with article 13, paragraphs 3 and 4, of Legislative Decree
29 December 2003 n. 387, and paragraph 41 of the Law of 23 August 2004
n. 239.” This mechanism can be combined with GC and the feed-in tariff (only
for the feed-in tariff must the plant be above 200 kW). Under these arrangements,
producers sell the electricity generated to GSE instead of through bilateral contracts
or directly on the Italian Power Exchange (IPEX). Eligible producers include plants
having a nominal power of less than 10 megavolt ampere (MVA): RES plants or
hybrid plants for the RES-E; plants of any capacity using wind, solar, geothermal,
waves, tides, or hydro (run of river only); plants with a nominal power of less than
10 MVA: non-RES plants or hybrid plants for the portion of electricity generated
from non-RES; plants having a nominal power greater than or equal to 10 MVA;
plants using RES other than wind, solar, geothermal, waves, tides, or hydro (run of
river only), provided that they are owned by a self-producer (as defined in article
2, paragraph 2, Legislative Decree 79/99). For access to the simplified purchase and
resale arrangements, the producer remits to GSE a fee to cover the administrative
costs up to a maximum of EUR 3,500.00 per year per plant. For plants of nominal
power up to 50 kW, the producer remits to GSE an additional fee for meter
aggregation. Thanks to this agreement between the producer and GSE, GSE
(1) purchases and resells electricity to be fed into the grid at the zonal price or at
a minimum guaranteed price, (2) transfers on behalf of the producer the fees for the
use of the grid (dispatch and transmission fees) to distributors and to the transmis-
sion system operator. The price applied to the electricity purchased by GSE and
injected into the grid is known as the average zonal price, that is, the average
monthly price per hourly band, which is set on IPEX for the market area to which
the plant is connected. Producers with small plants (nominal electrical capacity of
up to 1 MW) benefit from guaranteed minimum prices for the first 2 million kWh
per year, and they may receive more if the hourly zonal prices prove to be more
advantageous. The guaranteed minimum prices are updated annually by the Regu-
latory Authority. At the end of each year, GSE makes adjustments for the plants,
assessing whether the hourly zonal prices are higher than those resulting from the
application of the minimum guaranteed prices.
2.1.4 Mechanism of Net Metering

Net metering was introduced by Regulatory Authority Decision ARG/elt 74/08
(subsequently amended and supplemented by Decision ARG/elt 186/09) and aimed
at valuing the electricity injected into the grid according to predefined economic
compensation criteria. The economic conditions of net metering are more convenient
than those of simplified purchase and resale arrangements. Under the service, the
electricity generated by a consumer/producer in an eligible onsite plant and injected
into the grid can be used to offset the electricity withdrawn from the grid. This service
has been activated at the request of interested parties since 1 January 2009. In
particular, owners of one or more of the following plants may apply for the net
metering service: (1) RES-E plants with a capacity of up to 20 kW, (2) RES-E plants
with a capacity of up to 200 kW (commissioned after 31 December 2007), (3) high-
efficiency combined heat and power plants with a capacity of up to 200 kW.
Consumers receive a monetary payment that offsets the value of the electricity
produced and fed into the grid and the electricity withdrawn from the grid at
different periods of time. The contribution is determined by GSE considering
several issues, such as the characteristics of the plant and the type of contract
signed by customer and supplier.
The related contribution paid by GSE to the customer provides (1) the minimum
value of the energy cost and the equivalent in euros of electricity injected into the
grid and (2) a reversal of service charges limited to the energy exchanged with the
network.
For signing the agreement, the selling point and the point of entry must be the
same, except in cases where the plants are powered by RES and (1) the user of net
metering is a municipality, owner of the plant, with a population of up to 20,000

residents, and (2) the user of net metering is the Ministry of Defense, which is given
unlimited power. Generally, the service of net metering produces a beneficial effect
if, on an annual basis, the value of electricity injected into the grid is fully
compensated for by the charges associated with the energy quantities of electricity
withdrawn from the grid. Furthermore, for the total quantity of electricity
exchanged with the network, the user of net metering is reimbursed by GSE for
costs incurred to use the network in connection with transport services, dispatching
users2 who are owners of plants powered by RES, and general system charges. Net
metering is not compatible with simplified purchase and resale arrangements or
with the all-inclusive feed-in tariff.
2.1.5 Mechanism of Feed-In Tariff for PV

The feed-in tariff is an economic incentive for electricity generated from PV,
thereby encouraging electricity production from RESs. Italy introduced the first
feed-in tariff in 2005 (ministerial decree of 28 July 2005), followed by the intro-
duction of several schemes. The fourth feed-in scheme, introduced with the minis-
terial decree of 5 May 2011, applies to PV with a capacity of at least 1 kW and
commissioned between 1 June 2011 and 31 December 2016.
The impact of the five different schemes in terms of cumulative number of plants
is shown in Fig. 3. The tariff differs depending on the capacity and type of plant and
is granted over a period of 20 years. For plants commissioned by 31 December
2012, the feed-in premium scheme provides for a tariff for the electricity produced.
The electricity fed into the grid may be purchased by GSE (simplified purchase and
600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
sep-10
sep-11
feb-12
sep-12
feb-13
sep-13
jan-10
feb-10
apr-10
jun-10
may-10
aug-10
apr-11
jun-11
may-11
aug-11
jun-12
aug-13
oct-13
mar-10
dec-10
jan-11
feb-11
mar-11
dec-11
aug-12
oct-12
mar-12
apr-12
may-12
dec-12
mar-13
apr-13
may-13
jun-13
dec-13
oct-10
nov-10
oct-11
nov-11
jan-12
nov-12
jan-13
nov-13
jul-10
jul-11
jul-12
jul-13
I Feed-in II Feed-in III Feed-in IV Feed-in V Feed-in
Fig. 3 Cumulative number of plants under feed-in tariff (2010–2013) (calculation based on GSE
data)
2
According to the GME definition Dispatching User or Dispatching Customer is a party that has
entered into a dispatching service contract with the TSO (Terna S.p.A.). For each Offer Point, it is
the only party who/which is required to submit Offers/Bids into the Ancillary Services Market in
respect of Offer Points authorised for this market.
resale arrangements) or economically offset by the value of electricity withdrawn

from the grid net metering service. The fifth feed-in scheme introduced by the
ministerial decree of 5 July 2012 has redefined the new tariff incentives for PV
production starting in 2013. The novelty of the fifth feed-in scheme is that it sets a
total limit on new incentives. This limit was reached already on 6 July 2013 at a
cumulative annual cost of incentives of EUR 6.7 billion (Resolution 250/2013/R/
EFR).
However, the fourth feed-in scheme is still in force for (1) small PV plants, PV
plants integrated with innovative features, and concentrating solar power (CSP)
coming into operation before 27 August 2012; (2) large PV plants listed in the
relevant registers and producing certification of completion of work within 7 months
(or 9 months for plants with a capacity greater than 1 MW) since the publication of
the resulting ranking; (3) PV plants built on public buildings and public areas that
went into operation by 31 December 2012.
2.1.6 Feed-In Tariff Mechanism for Concentrated Solar Power

The feed-in tariff support scheme for CSP is regulated by the ministerial decree of
11 April 2008, as subsequently amended by the ministerial decree of 6 July 2012.
Plants eligible for support are new CSP plants (including hybrid ones)
commissioned after 18 July 2008 (date of Regulatory Authority’s Decision 95/08,
implementing the aforementioned legislation) and meeting the following
requirements: (1) they must be connected to the power grid (or to small isolated
grids) and each plant must have a single point of connection; (2) they do not use
substances and preparations classified as very toxic, toxic, or harmful under
Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, as subsequently amended (plants located
in industrial sites are not subject to this requirement); (3) feed-in tariffs for CSP
plants vary, depending both on the nonsolar fraction, that is, the percentage of
electricity from nonsolar sources generated every year, and the capturing surface,
that is, the sum of the surface areas of all solar collectors that are part of the CSP
(or hybrid) plant. The support period is equal to 25 years, beginning on the date of
commissioning of the plant. Incentives are thus awarded only for electricity
generated by the plant from the solar source; this electricity is measured by a
metering system placed after the generators of the plant. Feed-in tariffs add to
revenues from the sale of electricity generated and injected into the grid. Plants
commissioned by 31 December 2012 are eligible for subsequent feed-in tariffs
(Table 3).
Plants commissioned in the period from 31 December 2012 to 31 December
2015 and having a capturing surface of up to 2,500 m2 are eligible for the following
feed-in tariffs (Table 4).
Plants commissioned in the period from 31 December 2012 to 31 December
2015 and having a capturing surface exceeding 2,500 m2 are eligible for subsequent
feed-in tariffs (Table 5).
The values of the tariffs relate to plants commissioned in the period from 18 July
2008 (date of Decision 95/08 adopted by Regulatory Authority in compliance with
the ministerial decree of 11 April 2008) to 31 December 2015. For plants
Table 3 Feed-in tariffs for Non-solar fraction Tariff (EUR/kWh)

plants commissioned by
Below 0.15 0.28
31 December 2012 (GSE
2016a, b) 0.15–0.50 0.25
Above 0.50 0.22
NB: The non-solar fraction (Fint) of a solar thermodynamic plant is
defined as the share of net electricity generated from non-solar
sources, expressed by the following relation: Fint ¼ 1 Ps/Pne,
where Ps is the net electricity generated from the solar source and
Pne is the net electricity generated by the plant
Table 4 Feed-in tariffs for small plants commissioned from 31 December 2012 to 31 December
2015 (GSE 2016a, b)
Non-solar fraction Tariff (EUR/kWh)
Below 0.15 0.36
0.15–0.50 0.32
Above 0.50 0.30
NB: The non-solar fraction (Fint) of a solar thermodynamic plant is defined as the share of net
electricity generated from non-solar sources, expressed by the following relation: Fint ¼ 1 Ps/
Pne, where Ps is the net electricity generated from the solar source and Pne is the net electricity
generated by the plant
Table 5 Feed-in tariffs for Non-solar fraction Tariff (EUR/kWh)

big plants commissioned
Below 0.15 0.32
from 31 December 2012 to
31 December 2015 0.15–0.50 0.30
Above 0.50 0.27
NB: The non-solar fraction (Fint) of a solar thermodynamic plant is
defined as the share of net electricity generated from non-solar
sources, expressed by the following relation: Fint ¼ 1 Ps/Pne,
where Ps is the net electricity generated from the solar source and
Pne is the net electricity generated by the plant
commissioned in the period from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016, the tariffs
for the year 2015 will be cut by 5 %. For plants commissioned in the period from
1 January 2017 to 31 December 2017, the tariffs for the year 2015 will be cut by
another 5 % (rounded to the third decimal place). In absence of further decrees, the
tariffs set by the ministerial decree of 6 July 2012 for plants commissioned in 2017
will continue to apply for the years following 2017.
2.1.7 Feed-In Tariff Mechanism for Heating and Cooling

The ministerial decree of 28 December 2012, through the renewable energy for
heating and cooling support scheme, introduced a specific support scheme to
promote the use of thermal energy from RES and to improve energy efficiency.
This scheme is one of the measures envisaged by the Legislative Decree 28 of
3 March 2011 to promote meeting the European mandatory targets assigned to Italy
in terms of the RES share of energy consumption. Public administrations and
private parties are eligible for incentives with reference to the following projects:
energy efficiency improvements in existing building envelopes, replacement of
existing systems for winter heating with more efficient ones, and replacement and
eventual construction of new renewable-energy systems. There is a fund of EUR
900 million per year available, of which EUR 700 million is for private parties and
EUR 200 million for public administrations. The incentive is spread out over a
period of 2–5 years.
2.2 Incentive Schemes: Recent Developments
It should be stressed that the A3 tariff component is charged to end users for the
promotion of RES-E production. The A3 tariff is finalized to cover the difference
between the costs incurred by GSE for paying subsidies and purchasing electricity
and the amount of revenue from selling energy on the electricity market. The
amount needed to finance the A3 tariff has grown exponentially, increasing
from EUR 3 billion in 2009 to almost EUR 15 billion in 2016.
From the second half of 2016 we are witnessing, instead, a reduction of A3
requirements, primarily owing to the end of the incentive period for some large
plants. The calculations do not take into account the provisions of paragraphs 149 to
151 of article 1 of the law of 28 December 2015, no. 208 (Stability Law for 2016).
According to this law, there are new incentives for electricity generation from
biomass, biogas, and sustainable bio-liquids.
2.2.1 Incentive Mechanisms: Synthesis of Framework 2013–2018
Number of contracts for incentives The increase in the number of contracts in

recent years is mainly due to the strict adherence to the net metering mechanism.
The end of the incentive period of large plants under the previous regime (CIP 6 and
GC) reduces the A3 requirement, partially compensating for this increase. The
resulting effect is, however, a significant decrease in power and energy managed
by GSE.
Incentive costs The end of the incentive period for the beneficiaries of the
previous schemes (CIP-63 and GC) will lead to a gradual decrease in the share of
energy benefitting from the incentive scheme and, therefore, a decrease in the
energy sold by GSE on the electricity market. This phenomenon and the publication
of specific measures aimed at reducing the electricity bill—including, for example,
the so-called smoothing-photovoltaic incentives (Act 116/14) and smoothing RES
incentives (Act 9/14)—led to a reduction of A3 requirements in 2015. It should be
noted, however, that a new increase is expected in the estimated A3 requirements
3
CIP-6 stands for the Inter-Ministerial Prices Committee Resolution 6 of 1992, which introduced
an incentive mechanism for energy from RES and assimilated RES (e.g. cogeneration).
for 2016, primarily as a result of the GC mechanism. In addition to the costs

associated with the buy-back of unsold certificates enacted by GSE of unsold titles,
there are also costs related to the new incentive tariffs that will replace the GC
scheme starting in 2016 (article 19 of the ministerial decree of 6 July 2012). Starting
in 2017, the A3 economic requirements are expected to decline, partly as a result of
the end of the incentive period for large plants.
Feed-in tariff schemes Law 11/15 has postponed until 31 December 2015 the
deadline for the operational start-up of renewable energy plants in the earthquake
zones of Emilia-Romagna, Veneto, and Lombardy. The number and size of the
contracts may decrease as a result of inspection actions. Indeed, inspection actions
in the period July–October 2015 yielded around 30 cases of incentive repeals. The
incentive burden was reduced in 2015 due to the application of article 26.3 of Law
116/14 (“smoothing-incentives”), with a related savings of around EUR 400 mil-
lion. Note that in the two-year period 2030–2031, the incentive period for about half
of the existing plants will come to an end, leaving a total capacity of around 12 GW.
Green certificates The GCs are negotiable securities issued by GSE in proportion
to the energy produced by RES qualified plants. During 2015 and 2016, the
incentive period for many plants has ended or will end. The total capacity entitled
to incentives can decrease as a result of inspection actions. The estimated financial
A3 requirement increases in the year 2016. In addition to costs associated with the
withdrawal of the remaining GC (relative to production in the second half of 2015),
new incentives will be paid for 2016 production, according to article 19 of the
ministerial decree of 6 July 2012. Starting in 2017, however, only the incentives
provided for by article 19 of the ministerial decree 6 July 2012 will be paid. In
addition, since 2015, Law 9/14 (“smoothing RES”) has envisioned, on a voluntary
basis, a reduction of the annual tariff and an extension of the incentive period.
Feed-in tariff for small plants The feed-in tariff for small plants is granted to
qualified small RES plants (with a nominal capacity of up to 1 MW and 0.2 MW
only for wind power plants) for a period of 15 years. The number and size of
contracts may decrease as a result of inspection actions. The change in the cost of an
energy buy-back is regulated by article 5, paragraph 7-bis of Legislative Decree
69/13. In addition, since 2015, Law 9/14 has envisioned, on a voluntary basis, a
reduction of the annual tariff and an extension of the incentive period.
CIP-6 The RES plants complying with the specific CIP-6 mechanism benefit from
a contract enacting specific rates computed on the basis of the defrayed cost of
installation and operation, the defrayed cost of fuel, and the incentive component.
The Law 99/09 promoted voluntary resolution mechanisms early in CIP-6
contracts. Over the years there has been a decrease in the total CIP-6 power
owing to early termination and natural expiration of the existing contracts. Overall,
the amount of CIP-6 energy sales by GSE is decreasing in the electric market.
Other RES The incentives provided by ministerial decree 6 July 2012 apply to
installations (not solar) that started operations as of 1 January 2013. The incentives
are provided up to a cumulative cost relating to RES (non-PV) plants, other than
PV, totaling EUR 5.8 billion per year. This value, on 30 September 2015, amounted
to EUR 5.767 billion. The increase in the energy buy-back cost and incentive is
estimated based on specific assumptions of entry into operation of the plants on the
admissible register list. The ministerial decree of 6 July 2012 foresaw, in fact, a
time limit for the operation start of 40 months since the closing of third admissible
register list (August 2014). The Ministry of Economic Development is currently
engaged in the publication of a new ministerial decree about RES incentives for
plants (non-PV), starting in 2016.
Energy buy-back scheme The decreasing trend in energy buy-backs by GSE is

due to the decrease in the number of existing contracts. The main causes are (1) the
exclusion from guaranteed minimum prices since 2014 for some RESs (DL 145/
13), (2) the application of balancing costs since 2013 (Decision 281/2012/R/efr),
and (3) the conversion of some contracts to net metering since 2015 (due to the
increase of the power limit to 500 kW to access qualification SEU—Law 116/14).
The sharp reduction in the cost of buy-backs in 2014 depends firstly on the
exclusion of certain energy plant from the benefit of the Guaranteed Minimum
Price scheme (price effect of approximately EUR 490 million) and secondly on the
end of a significant number of GSEs’ dispatching contracts (quantity effect of
approximately EUR 150 million).
Net metering There will be a gradual increase in the amount of power and the
number of contracts, resulting in an increase in energy buy-backs by GSE (energy
bought from individual RES plants and sold on the electric market) due to the
increase to 500 kW of the power limit and direct access to qualification SEU (Law
116/14). The A3 requirements declined in 2014 as a result of the new method of
calculation of the service fee, which provides for the introduction of a limit on the
exemption from general system charges (Deliberations Regulatory Authority SI
570/2012/R/efr and 614/2013/R/efr).
2.3 Regulatory Framework: Recent Developments
Several new national legislative and regulatory laws were introduced in 2015,
primarily focusing on the RES incentive mechanisms. Energy efficiency measures
for public administration buildings were enacted by ministerial decree (application
of Legislative Decree 28, 2011, article 40). In addition, new measures provided
better coordination of the policies and actions envisioned by the National Fund for
energy efficiency. GC measures for biomass controls were improved, amending the
previous ministerial decree of 2010 requiring new tracing procedures for biomass.
New measures for tax deductions were enacted by Law 208 (28 December 2015)
starting in 2016, confirming tax reductions of 65 % for measures to improve energy

efficiency and a 50 % deduction for building renovations. Incentives for biomass,
biogas, and sustainable bioliquids were extended for 5 years. Environmental pro-
tection and the promotion of the green economy were the core of Law
221 (28 December 2015). It includes incentive arrangements for products derived
from waste recovery and materials resulting from the dismantling of complex
products, management of end of life of PV panels, construction requirements of
thermal plants, and byproduct usage in biomass plants and biogas. New measures
were enacted to improve the methodology for monitoring regional objectives in
terms of the RES share of total consumption.
New, simplified rules for RES plant construction were enacted by ministerial
decree (19 May 2015). Specifically, communication on the construction, connec-
tion, and operation of electricity production plants from RES and for the installation
and exercise of micro-cogeneration units must use a single model. Procedures for
the construction, connection, and operation of small PV systems integrated on the
roofs of buildings were also simplified. Furthermore, new legislation in 2015 set
guidelines for the National Statistical Program to monitor: heat derived from RESs;
thermal energy produced by heat pumps, solar thermal collectors, and geothermal
resources; and national consumption targets for RES. New legislation in 2015
concerning the incentive mechanism of white certificates has improved the moni-
toring process, updating the format for technical communications (21 T, 22 T, 36E,
40E, 47E data sheet).
In June 2016, a decree for renewables (excluding PV) was approved, providing
EUR 435 million a year for new plants, fully reconstructed, reactivated, and
upgraded and came into effect on 1 January 2013. The decree provides specific
incentives for each source. In particular, to the most efficient “mature” technologies
(such as wind) is assigned about half of the available resources. The remainder is
equally divided among high-potential technologies that have strong growth
prospects and the potential to penetrate foreign markets (such as solar thermal)
and biological sources whose use is connected to the potential of the circular
economy. Overall, the sector with a budget for the greatest incentives will be
biomass, with EUR 105 million for energy recovery from waste and agricultural
residues. The CSP will amount to EUR 98 million for the development of innova-
tive technologies, and wind will be allocated EUR 85 million for onshore and EUR
10 million for offshore. Hydropower will be EUR61 million, and EUR 37 million
will go to geothermal. However, EUR 29 million will be made available for
so-called reworking, that is, to encourage the reclamation and redevelopment of
old plants with the objective of ensuring adequate power efficiency (wind and
water) with respect to costs and no new environmental impacts. The incentive
period will last 20 years (25 for solar thermal). Finally, the development of green
products and green contracts in the Italian retail market will require increased
transparency of the regulatory framework, which will have a positive impact on
consumer trust and confidence. In some countries there exists a mix of policy
interventions ranging from private intervention by end user associations to regu-

latory acts of regulatory authorities.
In Italy, the Regulatory Authority approved a set of rules to ensure that electric-
ity sold to individual customers is produced from RESs, also ensuring that it is not
further commercialized. The tool used is the garanzie di origine, or guarantee of
origin, that is, an electronic document used to certify that a given quantity of
electricity has been produced from RES. Such a tool makes it possible to protect
consumers in a context where there are lots of RES-E offers. In particular, the
Regulatory Authority (2010) requires that the following information be indicated:
(1) for energy-based contracts, the share of RES-E (or kilowatt-hour) or the share of
electricity (or kilowatt-hour) produced by low-emission plants or the share of
electricity (or kilowatt-hour) produced by high-efficiency plants; (2) for fund- or
project-based contracts, the contribution for the project funding related to RES
plants, low-emission plants or high-efficiency plants. In this way, the goal of the
Regulatory Authority is twofold: to promote RES consumption through increased
transparency and to develop tools for the promotion of a wide range of environ-
mental services associated with electricity production.
3 Renewable Energy Sources: Looking Inside the Italian

Electricity Market
Total RES-E generation has increased its penetration significantly in recent years in
Italy, from around 54 TWh, that is, 18 % of gross electricity generation in 2004, to
112 TWh in 2013, that is, 39 % of gross electricity generation (Figs. 4 and 5). The
contribution of hydropower saw some variability in the period 2004–2013, while
geothermal energy was stable and PV and wind have contributed increasing shares
to total RES-E generation (Table 6).
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Hydro Wind PV Geothermal Bioenergy
Fig. 4 Trend of RES in Italian electricity mix, 2004–2013 (calculation based on TERNA data)
39%
31%
27%
24% 25%
18% 18%
16% 15% 15%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Fig. 5 Share of RES in Italian gross electricity production, 2004–2013 (calculation based on
TERNA data)
3.1 Supply Side
The fast-paced deployment of RES since 2010 has led to important changes in the
Italian electricity market.
First, there has been a reduction in the number of plants operating in a competi-
tive environment. Indeed, RES enjoy dispatching priority in the electricity market
and then act as “price takers.”
In addition, the solution mechanism of the market based on the marginal price
implies that all plants are compensated at the most expensive price of the system
selected in the day-ahead market (DAM). RES generators, which have very low or
zero marginal costs, bid at (or close to) zero in the DAM and are compensated at the
price of the more expensive thermal power plant without participating in the
market. Therefore, competition occurs only among thermal power plants.
Second, RES might create congestion and security problems in the power
network. Third, the capacity defined in the DAM is not easily executable because
the plants selected based on economic merit do not guarantee a sufficient level of
reserves (primary, secondary, and tertiary) that cannot be supplied by PV or wind
power plants. Then, other markets have taken on the improper function of being
“correct” on the DAM outcome to ensure the security of the system. Of course, such
changes are expensive.
Fourth, the DAM does not distinguish between and valorize the energy supplied
by thermal power plants and that offered by RES plants, which is more uncertain
and therefore requires the availability of reserves, but may not offer reserves’
services. This inequity generates a demand for a so-called capacity payment in
favor of thermal power plants that allow for the operation of the electrical system
(GME 2014). The strong growth of PV from 2010 to 2013 (Fig. 6) explains the
important increase in RES total electricity consumption, from 3 to 4 % in 2010 to
30 % in 2013.
Table 6 Trend of RES in Italian electricity mix and share of RES (calculation based on TERNA data)
GWh 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Hydro 42,338 36,067 36,994.3 32,815.2 41,623 49,137.5 51,116.8 45,822.7 41,875 52,773
Wind 1,847 2,343 2,971 4,034 4,861 6,543 9,126 9,856 13,407 14,897
Marketing Renewable Energy in Italy
PV 4.0 4.0 2.3 39 193 677 1,906 10,796 18,862 21,589

Geothermal energy 5,437 5,325 5,527 5,569 5,520 5,342 5,376 5,654 5,592 5,659
Bioenergy 4,499 4,845 5,286 5,441 5,966 7,557 9,440 10,832 12,487 17,090
Total 54,125 48,584 50,781 47,899 58,164 69,255 76,964 82,962 92,222 112,008
Percentage 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Hydro (%) 78 74 73 69 72 71 66 55 45 47
Wind (%) 3 5 6 8 8 9 12 12 15 13
PV (%) 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 13 20 19
Geothermal energy (%) 10 11 11 12 9 8 7 7 6 5
Bioenergy (%) 8 10 10 11 10 11 12 13 14 15
Total (%) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
361
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Installed power capacity at the end of the previous year Additional power
Fig. 6 RES growth in Italy (MW) (calculation based on TERNA data)
Table 7 IPEX main indicators (2010–2013) (GME annual reports, 2011–2014)

Variable Unit 2010 2011 2012 2013
Volumes trade on MGP TWh 318.56 311.49 298.67 289.15
Liquidity % 63.1 58.2 60.1 72.0
Price: Average EUR/MWh 64.12 72.23 75.48 62.99
Minimum 10.00 10.00 12.14 0.00
Maximum 174.62 164.80 324.20 151.88
Number of participants, 31 December Number 207 192 200 223
ENEL share Percentage 27.9 26.2 25.4 25.2
Single-buyer share (Net CIP6) 21.11 26.67 22.35 13.04
Sales by source
Combined cycle Percentage 55.43 52.94 45.12 38.11
Coal 9.04 11.20 12.81 10.80
Other 11.34 11.51 11.50 12.07
Hydropower 15.64 14.49 13.96 18.67
Geothermal 1.89 2.06 2.10 2.18
Wind 2.07 2.75 4.08 5.81
Solar and other 2.45 3.48 9.24 11.00
Pumped storage 2.15 1.57 1.19 1.36
Indeed, at the end of 2010, Italy had 156,000 PV plants with an installed capacity
of 3500 MW. Installed capacity more than tripled over 2009 levels. As in 2010, the
growth of these plants in 2011 was again outstanding, with 330,000 PV plants, that
is, 12,700 MW of installed capacity.
The number and capacity of PV plants grew at a very fast pace in 2012, with
481,000 plants and 16,700 MW of installed capacity, and in 2013, with 591,000
plants and 18,000 MW of installed capacity (Table 7).
On the other hand, PV production increased by 13 % in the same period. The
amount of electricity produced through the use of renewable incentives amounted
56.51
52.52 53.80
49.60 50.05 49.96
45.95
Photovoltaic Geothermal Hydropower Wind Hydropower Thermal PUN

(fluent)
Fig. 7 Day-ahead market: electricity price by RES and PUN - Prezzo Unico Nazionale, Single
National Price- (our elaboration from GSE data; prices are in EUR/MWh, 2014)
to around 65 TWh in 2015, and the related aggregated cost has been approximately
EUR 12.5 billion, of which around EUR 12.3 billion was covered by the A3
component of the electricity bill. Finally, information on electricity prices
according to the different RES is shown in Fig. 7. The prices are quite similar,
that is, the maximum difference is 20 % between thermal (most expensive) and PV
(cheapest). On average, with the exception of thermal sources, all RES are cheaper
than the average energy source mix. Indeed, the national average price in 2014 was
EUR 53.80/MWh.
There has been an increase in the supply of green products in the Italian retail
electricity markets in 2016. Both large and small operators offer different kinds of
contracts for several types of customers. Operators involved in the renewable,
green, or sustainable electricity supply are in many cases producers and retailers
(e.g. vertically integrated operators). In 2015, the number of operators selling
electricity on the free market was 487 vs. 450 in 2014. This result confirms the
continued growth in the number of suppliers, especially of small operators that are
not able to meet the needs of the entire country, which started in 2007, the year of
liberalization. In the entire retail electricity market, overall sales grew by 2.2 % in
2015 compared to 2014; Enel and Edison are still the largest players. In 2015, Enel
sold 85.4 TWh, equal to 33.7 % of the total, while Edison sold 17.1 TWh, approxi-
mately 7 % of the total. On the final sales market (end users), Enel controls 74 % of
the electricity consumed by households, but Edison is the leading operator,
followed by Enel, with respect to medium- and high-voltage end users (Regulatory
Autority 2016a, b).
Focusing on RES-E production, two large players have a considerable share of
green production (Nomisma 2012). Without taking into account nuclear power,
Enel has a share of renewable equal to 38 %, while Edison’s share is equal to 10 %.
Other players with considerable shares of renewables in electricity production are
A2A (39 %) and Iren (21 %). In Italy, around 70 % of utilities offer green products
or options in the free market. This trend started in Europe in the late 1990s owing
both to liberalization in the electricity markets and to environmental concerns. In

this context, utilities understood the added value of green products and so started to
offer them. It should be stressed that it is very difficult to compare all Italian green
products data. However, using an institutional Website and the Regulatory
Authority’s Website (Trova offerte), we made a first comparison between green
and conventional products for flat and time-in-use contracts for low-voltage clients,
assuming a consumption of 2700 kWh and a power of 3 kW.4 With reference to
high- and medium-voltage consumers, we have estimated the number of contracts
potentially provided by the main operators. In the Italian retail market, the differ-
ential between RES-E and normal electricity is quite small. If we consider flat
products, the green ones have an average price of around EUR 0.08/kWh vs. EUR
0.07/kWh of non-green products, meaning that the premium is, on average,
11–12 %. With reference to the time-of-use product, the average premium price
for peak consumption is negative and relatively close to zero. It amounts to EUR
0.14/kWh that is 2 % lower than the average flat tariff. In the off-peak period, the
premium is positive and equal to EUR 0.018/kWh, that is, 30 % higher than the
average conventional premium. These results could mean that on the free market
the rates should induce consumers to shift from the peak to the off-peak period.
However, for green products, the difference from peak and off-peak rates may not
be so crucial given that customers should pay more attention to the environmental
services associated with the rate. Finally, for medium- and high-voltage customers,
there are no data on rates because they usually are negotiated directly between
operators and customers. Nevertheless, several operators provide this type of
product.
3.2 Demand Side
In Italy, RES play a central role in the national energy system. They are widespread
in electricity production, in the thermal and the transport sectors. In 2014, the total
consumption of energy from RESs amounted to 20.2 Mtoe, with a reduction of
2.4 % compared to 2013, mainly related to the thermal and transport sectors.
Indeed, warmer weather in 2014 and a decline in fuel consumption were the main
factors in the reduction. The reduction in gross total energy consumption has been
considerable; in 2014, it decreased by 4.3 %, from 123.6 Mtoe to 118.6 Mtoe
compared to 2013. The share of renewables in consumption was 17.1 % in 2014;
this value is higher than the target assigned to Italy by Directive 2009/28/EC for
2020 (17 %) and is close to the objective set by the National Energy Plan (NEP). It
should be stressed that this performance is also conditioned by the negative trend of
4
Operators and offers take, into account are ENEL (Enel, 2016) (Energia pura casa, E-light, E-light
verde, Semplice luce, Tutto compreso green); EDISON (Energia impatto zero); E.On (Luce verde
piu, Luce verde bioraria); Illumia (Energia sostenibile); Engie (Casa pi
u verde Web); A2A (Prezzo
sicuro verde); Hera Comm (Prezzo Fisso Hera Natura Luce); Sorgenia (Senza pensieri; Libero
casa); Lifegate (Lifagate energy); Acea (Sostenibile piu) (Acea Energia, 2016); ènostra (soloverde
MONO, solo verde BIO, solo verde ALTRI USI); Enegan (Green domestico).
25
20
15
10
Actual NEP
Fig. 8 Gross final RES consumption (our elaboration based on TERNA data)
Table 8 RES share of gross final energy consumption
Gross final energy consumption 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
from RESs (A¼A1þA2þA3) 17.35 16.51 19.63 20.74 20.25 21.13
Electricity sector (A1)
Hydropower 3.73 3.78 3.80 3.87 3.94 3.94
Wind 0.76 0.88 1.07 1.21 1.28 1.31
Solar 0.16 0.93 1.62 1.86 1.92 1.96
Geothermal 0.46 0.49 0.48 0.49 0.51 0.53
Biomass 0.81 0.93 1.06 1.46 1.61 1.62
Heating sector (A2)
Geothermal 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13
Solar-thermal 0.13 0.14 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19
Biomass 7.65 5.55 7.52 7.78 7.04 7.69
Heat pumps 2.09 2.27 2.42 2.52 2.58 2.58
Transport sector (A3)
Biofuels 1.42 1.4 1.37 1.25 1.06 1.18
Gross final consumption (B) 133.32 128.21 127.06 123.86 118.6 122.21
Electricity 28.48 28.7 28.31 27.48 26.8 27.11
Oil and biofuels 50.13 49.7 46.61 45.02 45.41 46.69
Natural gas 38.5 35.53 35.45 35.22 30.9 32.6
Coal 2.91 3.41 3.32 2.37 2.48 2.08
RESs for heating and waste 13.3 10.87 13.37 13.77 13.01 13.73
National target (A/B) (%) 13.01 12.88 15.45 16.74 17.07 17.29
Source: Calculation based on TERNA (2016) data. (In bold main indexes)
total energy consumption as a result of the economic crisis. However, the actual
RES aggregated consumption in Italy is following a path that often exceeds the
target set by NEP (Fig. 8 and Table 8).
Moving from an aggregate to disaggregate perspective, in Chapter “Global
Markets and Trends for Renewables” we highlighted the importance of the attitudes
of citizens to environmental considerations in promoting green product deploy-

ment. Attitude determines citizens’ assessment of the positive externalities of
RES-E production and, consequently, how much they are willing to pay to support
RES-E and green services. Consequently, it seems crucial to have a better under-
standing of the determinants of consumer attitudes. Since 2007, we have
investigated the attitudes and preferences of Italian citizens for RES-E production
(Bollino 2009; Polinori 2009; Bigerna and Polinori 2014). National surveys were
conducted in 2007 (July, November, and December), 2008, and 2011 and are
representative of the national level. In the survey conducted in November 2007,
1091 Italians were interviewed, while the sample sizes of the other surveys were
around 1600. The stratified samples are highly representative of Italy’s 60 million
residents. The surveys were conducted using a computer-aided telephone (CATI)
and Web (CAWI) interviewing methods by two prominent Italian marketing and
consulting companies. In the surveys, each respondent was questioned about
(1) RES and their potential development, (2) the Italian energy system, and
(3) amount of money (bids) needed to support RES development in Italy. Figure 9
shows the statistics on “Knowledge of RES,” that is, whether or not respondents
July 2007 Accuracy July 2007 Knowledge
Others 69%
1%
Energy corps 100%
2%
Wood biomass 100%
3%
Geothrmal power 100%
4%
Waste recycling 96%
5%
Photovoltaic 66%
13%
Hydro power 70%
19%
Wind power 73%
38%
Solar Energy 71%
59%
November 2007 Accuracy November 2007 Knowledge
Others 70%
2%
Energy corps 100%
3%
Wood biomass 100%
3%
Geothrmal power 100%
3%
Waste recycling 98%
3%
Photovoltaic 77%
26%
Hydro power 72%
20%
Wind power 74%
40%
Solar Energy 73%
61%
Fig. 9 Knowledge of RES (our elaboration on original data)

December 2007 Accuracy December 2007 Knowledge
Others 55%
1%
Energy corps 100%
2%
Wood biomass 100%
4%
Geothrmal power 96%
3%
Waste recycling 90%
4%
Photovoltaic 75%
25%
Hydro power 74%
18%
Wind power 76%
43%
Solar Energy 75%
63%
June 2008 Accuracy June 2008 Knowledge
Others 66%
1%
Energy corps 100%
2%
Wood biomass 100%
4%
Geothrmal power 93%
4%
Waste recycling 94%
7%
Photovoltaic 73%
17%
Hydro power 77%
18%
Wind power 76%
38%
Solar Energy 76%
63%
Fig. 9 (continued)
have sound knowledge of RES. On average, 77.4 % of the total respondents

answered that they knew about RES. In particular, respondents had good knowl-
edge of solar power, hydropower, and wind power, whereas they knew little about
biomass, energy crops, and geothermal power. Furthermore, respondents were
asked to identify RES from among a set of energy sources. In this way we highlight
the importance of the description and understanding of the valuation scenario
(Soderqvist and Soutukorva 2006). We noted that, on average, more than 75 % of
the respondents were able to correctly identify different types of RES (Fig. 9).
The quality of data, that is, their accuracy, shows that respondents’ knowledge
about RES-E production increased in the investigated timeframe, and they were
able to understand the evaluated scenario proposed. This is an important verifica-
tion survey. Indeed, if respondents did not take the decision process seriously or
understand the questions, their responses would not reveal their true preferences.
An important aspect to understanding refers to how people were affected by the
environmental change proposed, particularly if Italians mainly focused on the
July 2007 November 2007
No Yes No Yes
43% 37% 37% 38%
Do not Do not
know know
20% 25%
December 2007 June 2008
No Yes Yes
46% 29% 34%
No
50%
Do not Do not
know know
25% 16%
Fig. 10 Extra premium for RES-E production: preferences (our elaboration on original data)
environmental benefits of RES-E or if they mainly perceived the higher costs and
technical problems associated with RES-E production.
If environmental benefits compensate for the costs associated with RES-E
production, it is expected that citizens will be willing to pay an extra premium for
RES-E production. Respondents’ preferences for the extra premium in each survey
are shown in Fig. 10. Respondents who are unwilling to pay an extra premium are in
the majority in all investigated cases. However, combining the favorable (more than
30 %) and indecisive responses (around 20 %), we obtain an absolute majority.
In the last section of each survey, consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) was
elicited using different formats (payment card, bidding game, contingent evaluation
multiple-bound dichotomous choice). The aggregate descriptive results are shown
in Fig. 11. Among respondents with a positive WTP, the average amount
respondents are willing to pay increases from EUR 6.70 in July 2007 to EUR
8.40 in June 2008. Another important result is that, on average, 80 % of citizens are
willing to pay from EUR 0.1 to EUR 10, while only 5 % are willing to pay EUR
20 or more.
Econometric results (Bollino 2009; Bigerna and Polinori 2014) confirm these
WTP amounts. In particular, the highest mean WTP amount obtained is EUR 9.39,
with a confidence interval of (EUR 9.24, EUR 9.50), while the lowest is EUR 3.74
with a confidence interval of (EUR 3.45, EUR 3.91), based on the different degrees
of uncertainty.
53%
50% 51%
48%
41%
41%
40% 39%
38%
34%
30%
20%
14%
12%
10% 11% 7%
9% 6%
3% 4%
0%
<5€ 5 € - 10 € 11 € - 20 € > 20 €
July 2007 November 2007 December 2007 June 2008
Fig. 11 Extra premium for RES-E production: WTP (our elaboration on original data)
The importance of understanding the impact of uncertainty on the WTP in

contingent valuation studies has been frequently treated in the literature [see
Bigerna and Polinori (2014) for a brief review]. Then, in November 2007, a specific
section of the questionnaire focused on this topic (Bigerna and Polinori 2014).
Results confirm that Italians’ preferences for RES-E are characterized by heteroge-
neity. According to different models estimated, the mean WTP range from EUR
12.76, with a confidence interval of (EUR 11.36, EUR 14.80), to EUR 15.09, with a
confidence interval of (EUR 14.02, EUR 16.47). Obviously, estimated median
WTPs are more conservative ranging from EUR 4.62, with a confidence interval
of (EUR 4.11, EUR 5.13), to EUR 8.05, with a confidence interval of (EUR 7.32,
EUR 8.93), and they are assumed to be paid by more than half the respondents.
More recently, other authors have investigated Italians’ attitudes toward several
types of RES. However, only Cicia et al. (2012) used a representative sample at the
national level. They provided information about Italians’ preferences for various
energy sources, highlighting that all respondents had a negative attitude toward
nuclear power, even if they might be willing to buy electricity produced from
nuclear power if it were offered at a lower price than fossil energy. Also in their
study, Italians demonstrated better knowledge of solar energy and wind energy
compared to other RESs, and these two sources are the only ones supported by the
respondents in monetary terms. The WTPs estimated by the authors is comparable
with those of previous results. Indeed, to consume electricity from wind energy,
respondents indicated a WTP of EUR 7.05 to EUR 47.32 bimonthly in values 2007,
while the premium ranged from EUR 12.02 to EUR 46.63 for electricity from solar
energy. With reference to the other sources considered, Italians stated that they
would buy electricity generated from these sources only if it were cheaper. Assum-
ing the robustness of the previous results, it seems that Italians are largely willing to
support RES development.
3.3 RES Development in Italian Electricity Market: Recent

Developments Based on European Targets
Preliminary estimates show a capacity increase from 2014 to 2015 of around

1000 MW (þ2 %), mainly concentrated in wind turbines (þ5 %) and PV (þ2 %).
Overall production, however, is estimated to decrease by around 14 TWh (12 %).
The estimated contraction is associated with hydroelectric production, not so much
because 2015 was a particularly bad year (according to preliminary estimates,
hydropower would amount to 43,902 GWh, in line with the average value of
hydraulic production in the last 15 years) but because in 2014 weather conditions
were extremely favorable and production reached an unprecedented record (see
following chart). Based on these assumptions, in 2015 the share of RES generation
of gross domestic consumption would reach 32.8 %, down sharply compared to
2014 (37.5 %).
Monitoring the 2020 target set by RES Directive 2009/28/EC, Directive 2009/
28/EC establishes for each EU member state binding targets for RES development
in 2020 expressed in terms of the RES share of gross final consumption of energy.
The target assigned to Italy in 2020 is 17 %. In accordance with Legislative Decree
28/11, progress toward this objective is monitored annually by GSE, according to
the methodology approved by the decree of 14 January 2012 of the Ministry of
Economic Development. Table 8 provides a general framework of the variables
considered for target monitoring (RES uses in Italy in the electrical, heating, and
transport sectors) as well as the macro components of gross final consumption of
energy in the country. Data for 2010–2014 are official historical series, while for
2015 they are preliminary estimates. On the basis of these assumptions, the RES
share of gross final consumption of energy can be preliminarily estimated at about
17.3 %, a slightly higher value than that for 2014 (17.1 %). Accordingly, the RES
increase, approximately 900 ktoe (of which over 70 % is attributable to the use of
biomass in the heating sector), would then be proportionally higher than the
increase in total gross final consumption (3.6 Mtoe).
4 Conclusions and Policy Implications
During 2015, RES grew at their strongest pace ever, shortening the economic gap
from fossil fuels. Among RES, wind, thermal, and PV have developed dramatically,
as has green energy used in transport. RES are already competitive with fossil fuels
in many markets. In addition, the pressure of climate change is forcing a growing
number of countries to incorporate a “green component” into their national policies.
Even if there are still many challenges that need to be addressed, such as the
effective integration of large shares of RES-E in the electrical system, political
instability, and regulatory and fiscal constraints, we can derive four main positive
lessons from the recent Italian case.
First, the massive widespread use of RES in everyday life has gradually changed
the attitudes of policymakers. From a very strong trend toward a command-and-
control approach in which all technical and economic issues related to RES
deployment in the system are tightly regulated, recent legislation has proven to be
more simplified and more market oriented. Second, the surprising success of RES
investment by both residential consumers and small and medium-sized commercial
and industrial enterprises made it possible to reach the target set for 2020 already in
2015. The financial effort has been significant, and the political net benefit of high
RES deployment started to be eroded by an onerous increase in household electric
bills. To this new scenario Italian policymaker reacted with a bold new approach
involving incentive cuts. All new legislation quickly started to curb new RES
investment by setting clear caps on total financing allotments to incentive policies.
Third, there has been growing awareness of the inadequacy of the electric market
design, demonstrated by the inversion of the peak and off-peak price profiles, with a
massive injection of RES (especially PV) during the day (Bigerna and Bollino
2016). As a consequence, conventional thermal plants’ utilization rates dropped
(from an optimal 6500 h to less than 2000 h in 2015), financial distress hit some
relevant generators, and the exercise of market power increased during the evening
hours, from 7:00 to 10:00 p.m. This last fact can be viewed as an attempt by
generators to recover fixed costs within a short time frame, when solar is nonfunc-
tioning. Fourth and last, but not least, on the positive side consumers have become
increasingly aware of green electricity. This has stimulated two courses of action.
On the one hand, regulators have enacted better rules for transparency and infor-
mation dissemination in the retail market. On the other hand, retailers have evolved
their marketing attitude, taking into consideration the end consumer of electricity
and treating them as customers who want value and not only users who receive a
state-monopoly regulated service. Thus, throughout Italy, new, high-quality
products have started to be offered on the market to satisfy the new demand for
green electricity and better environmental conditions.
References
Acea Energia. (2016). Offerte Casa e Business. Accessed June 03, 2016, from http://www.
aceaenergia.it/
Bigerna, S., & Bollino, C. A. (2016). Optimal price design in the wholesale electricity market.
Energy Journal. doi:10.5547/01956574.37.SI2.sbig
Bigerna, S., & Polinori, P. (2014). Italian households’ willingness to pay for green electricity.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.03.002
Bollino, C. A. (2009). The willingness to pay for renewable energy sources: the case of Italy with
socio-demographic determinants. Energy Journal. doi:10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol30-
No2-4
Cicia, G., Cembalo, L., Del Giudice, T., & Palladino, A. (2012). Fossil energy versus nuclear,
wind, solar and agricultural biomass: Insights from an Italian national survey. Energy Policy.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.030.
Enel. (2016). Mercato libero. Accessed June 04, 2016, from https://www.enelenergia.it/mercato/
libero/it-IT
GME–Gestore del Mercato Elettrico. (2014). Relazione annuale 2014. Accessed June 09, 2016, from
https://www.mercatoelettrico.org/it/MenuBiblioteca/documenti/20150720RelazioneAnnuale2014.
pdf
GSE –Gestore dei Servizi Elettrici. (2016a). Open data. Accessed June 1, 2016, from http://
opendata.gse.it/opendata/
GSE –Gestore dei Servizi Elettrici. (2016b). Data set. Accessed June 01, 2016, from http://
opendata.gse.it/dataset
Nomisma. (2012). I vantaggi del mercato libero dell’elettricità e del gas. Bologna: Nomisma
Energia srl.
Polinori, P. (2009). Italians, renewable energy sources and EU climate vision. IAEE Newsletter.
Accessed June 15, 2016, from http://www.iaee.org/en/publications/newsletterdl.aspx?id¼64
Regulatory Autority -AEEGSI. (2010). Controllo della vendita ai clienti finali di energia elettrica
da fonti rinnovabili. Accessed June 10, 2016, from http://www.autorita.energia.it/it/docs/dc/
10/023-10dco.jsp
Regulatory Autority -AEEGSI. (2016a). Relazione annuale sullo stato dei servizi e sull’attività
svolta. Accessed June 22, 2016, from http://www.autorita.energia.it/allegati/relaz_ann/16/
RAVolumeI_2016.pdf
Regulatory Autority -AEEGSI. (2016b). Trova Offerte. Accessed June 02, 2016, from http://www.
autorita.energia.it/it/trovaofferte.htm
Soderqvist, T., & Soutukorva, A. (2006). An instrument for assessing the quality of environmental
valuation studies. Stockholm: Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed June
18, 2016, from https://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/620-1252-5.pdf
TERNA. (2016). Dati statistici. Accessed May 25, 2016, from https://www.terna.it/it-it/
sistemaelettrico/statisticheeprevisioni/datistatistici.aspx
Simona Bigerna (Ph.D.) is Assistant Professor of Eco-

nomics at the Department of Economics, Professor of Inter-
national Economics, Economics of the Third Sector, and
Economics of Growth and Innovation at the University of
Perugia. She is a Faculty member in the Ph.D. program in
Internationalization of Small and Medium Enterprises and
visiting professor at several European Universities. Her
research focuses on energy economics, renewables, environ-
mental policy, and the transport industry, at the theoretical
and empirical levels. She has published in leading interna-
tional journals, including Energy Policy, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Renewable Energy, Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, and The Energy Journal. She has served as
referee for many international scientific journals. She is a
member of the editorial board of the Review of Economics
and Institutions. She is a member of the Interuniversity Research Centre on Pollution and the
Environment (CIRIAF) and the International Association of Energy Economics (IAEE). She has
been a member of the Spin-offs and Startups research group at the University of Perugia.
Carlo Andrea Bollino is Professor of Economics at the

University of Perugia, Professor of Energy Economics at
University LUISS in Rome, and president of the Italian
Association for Energy Economics (AIEE). He has served
as Chief Economist at Eni, an economist in the Bank of
Italy, and a research associate in Project Link for the United
Nations. Prof. Bollino has also taught economics at the
University of Pennsylvania (USA) and at universities in
Campobasso, Sassari, and Urbino (Italy). He graduated
with a degree in economics from Bocconi University and
earned his Ph.D. in Economics from the University of
Pennsylvania in 1983, under Nobel laureate Prof. Lawrence
Klein. His research interests include econometric modeling,
consumer behavior, energy markets, sustainable and renew-
able energy, liberalization, and regulation policy. He is the
author of over 200 scientific articles.
Paolo Polinori (Ph.D.) is Associate Professor of Econom-

ics in the Department of Economics at the University of
Perugia, professor of economics (undergraduate), regulatory
economics (graduate), and energy and environmental eco-
nomics (Ph.D.) at the University of Perugia. He is a faculty
member of the Ph.D. program in economics and a visiting
professor at several European universities. His research
focuses on energy and environmental economics, transport
economics, industrial economics, and agrifood systems. He
has published in leading international journals, including
Energy Policy, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, Sustainability, British Food Journal, and The
Energy Journal, and served as a referee for many interna-
tional scientific journals. Prof. Polinori holds membership in
the Interuniversity Research Centre on Pollution and the
Environment (CIRIAF), the International Association of Energy Economics (IAEE), and the
Global Trade Analysis Project at Purdue University, as well as in several economic associations.
He is an economic consultant for Monitoring Economics and Territory and has won important
national awards for his research activities. Finally, he is managing editor of the Review of
Economics and Institutions.
Marketing Renewable Energy in Japan
€rg Raupach-Sumiya
Jo
Abstract
This chapter provides a comprehensive analysis of Japan’s policy framework
and regulatory context for marketers of renewable energy (RE) and describes
recent developments in Japan’s market for RE, its competitive landscape, and
emerging RE-based business models. Fundamental regulatory reform of Japan’s
energy system, the complete liberalization of its electricity and gas markets, and
policies to promote the deployment of RE have expanded consumer choice and
created new business opportunities for RE in Japan. In the aftermath of the
Fukushima nuclear disaster, the interest of Japanese consumers in RE is grow-
ing. However, market transparency and disclosure rules regarding power sources
are still wanting, and constraints in the supply capacity for RE still limit the
sourcing opportunities for RE marketers. Furthermore, uncertainties regarding
the outcome of the market liberalization process and the future course of
RE-related policies remain high, while the commercial viability of differentia-
tion strategies based on environmental value added must still be tested.
Keywords
Japan’s energy policy • Regulatory reform • Japan’s renewable energy market
J. Raupach-Sumiya (*)
College of Business Administration, Ritsumeikan University, Osaka, Japan
e-mail: raupach@fc.ritsumei.ac.jp

376 J. Raupach-Sumiya
1 The Regulatory Context for RE in Japan
1.1 Japan’s Energy Policy
Energy-related policies and the regulatory framework for energy markets determine
supply- and demand-side conditions for the market integration of renewable energy
(RE) and shape the fundamental context for RE providers and marketers. For Japan,
the fundamental direction of energy policy is spelled out in the Basic Energy
Policy, which assesses the long-term outlook for Japan’s energy supply and
demand, determines the targeted mix of energy sources, and provides the overall
policy framework (METI 2015a). It is reviewed every 3 years. The latest plan was
adopted in April 2014 following controversial debate about the future role of
nuclear energy. It provides a comprehensive analysis of Japan’s post-Fukushima
energy situation and raises fundamental concerns about Japan’s high and growing
dependency on imports for fossil fuels, as well as the associated rise in energy costs
and greenhouse gas emissions following the shutdown of almost all nuclear power
plants. Because of these concerns, the Japanese government is calling for
accelerated investment in RE and is promoting its deployment. At the same time,
it still considers nuclear energy an indispensable, clean “baseload energy source”
while pointing to the relatively high cost and unreliability of RE.
This basic direction of Japan’s energy policy has been translated into a targeted
energy mix with a share of 20–22 % of electricity supply for nuclear energy and a
share of 22–24 % for RE by 2030.1 Following the adoption of the Paris Agreement
under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change on
12 December 2015, the Japanese government announced a new Energy Reform
Strategy in April 2016, which calls for JPY28 trillion (approx. USD 300 billion)
public and private investment by 2030 in the promotion of energy efficiency, the
cost-efficient expansion of RE, and the development of new energy technologies
(METI 2016a).
A cornerstone of Japan’s energy policy is the strengthening of competition in the
energy sector and the deregulation of Japan’s electricity and gas markets, which
until 1995 had been dominated by a limited number of vertically integrated utilities
that enjoyed regional monopolies in generation, transmission, and distribution. In
1995, the electricity market was first opened to independent power providers (IPPs),
1
Though the promotion and expansion of RE is a declared important policy objective, the Japanese
government stresses the continued importance of large-scale “baseload technologies” such as
nuclear, hydro, and coal, aiming for a 60 % share of the electricity supply for these baseload
technologies. These targets are, however, highly controversial. On the one hand, the targets for
nuclear power are deemed unrealistic because they would require the extension of the lifetime of
existing nuclear facilities beyond the formerly restricted lifetime of 40 years or the construction of
new nuclear facilities (Bloomberg 2015a). On the other hand, the Ministry of the Environment,
leading think tanks, and nongovernmental organizations call the targets for RE unambitious and
too low. Furthermore, the targeted expansion of RE relies to a large degree on solar and biomass,
while wind and geothermal continue to play a minor role (Nikkei Technology Online 2015).
Marketing Renewable Energy in Japan 377
1995 2000 2004 2005 2007
Deregulation of
Introduction of Deregulation of Deregulation of
Power
power segment
Independent power segment power segment
> 50kW /
Power Producer > 2,000kW > 500kW
(IPP) (20,000V) (20,000V)
Start of JPEX
Deregulation of Deregulation of Deregulation of Deregulation of

Gas
natural gas natural gas natural gas natural gas

sector sector sector sector
> 2 million m3 > 1 million m3 > 500,000 m3 > 100,000 m3
2015 2016 2017 2020 2022
Establishment Legal
of OCCTO / Full unbundling of
Power
Electricity liberalization of power

Market power market transmission
Surveillance (< 50kW) and distribution
Commission sector
Full
liberalization of Legal separation
Gas
natural gas of pipeline

sector sector
< 100,000 m3
Fig. 1 Deregulation of Japan’s power and gas market (author’s illustration based on METI 2014,
2015b)
followed by the gradual liberalization of the retail market from 2000 onwards
(Fig. 1) (METI 2014). In 2003, a power wholesale market was established (Japan
Electric Power eXchange/JEPX) that began operation in 2005. Since 2005, the
power retail market segments have been deregulated for large- and mid-scale
commercial users; however, the regional utilities still monopolize the important
retail segments of small-scale commercial users and private households.2 Since
2013, the government has enacted a series of laws and amendments that will fully
liberalize Japan’s electricity and gas markets in three steps by 2020 for electricity
and by 2022 for gas. The policy aims to secure a stable supply of electricity and gas,
2
The electricity market is subdivided into several segments based on connected power and voltage:
very large-scale users with a capacity exceeding 2000 kW and above 20,000 V, large-scale users
with a capacity of 500–2000 kW and up to 20,000 V, mid-scale users with a capacity of
50–500 kW and 20,000 V, small-scale users (6000 V), and households (100~200 V) consuming
less than 50 kW (METI 2014). Similar reforms were enacted in the gas market between 1995 and
2007, in principle opening the market up to competition except for small commercial customers
and private households (consumption of less than 100,000 m3).
to reduce tariffs, and to expand business opportunities and choices for consumers
(METI 2015b).
In Step 1, the Organization for Cross-Regional Coordination of Transmission
Operators (OCCTO) was inaugurated in July 2014 as an independent regulatory
authority sponsored by more than 500 power providers, operators, and retailers. It
started operations on 1 April 2015 with the objective of improving and monitoring a
more efficient, cross-regional management and nationwide balancing of electricity
supply and demand, coordinating among regional transmission operators, and
establishing rules for grid access and grid management (Smart Japan 2015a).
In Step 2, the low-voltage retail segment (<50 kW) was opened to full competi-
tion on 1 April 2016 by abolishing regional monopolies, introducing price compe-
tition (though applying transition rules), and allowing retail customers to freely
choose their electricity provider.3 The Amended Electricity Business Act replaced
the prevailing licensing categories for power providers and suppliers with three
general categories for participants in the electricity markets: (1) generation,
(2) transmission/distribution, and (3) retail. Full competition is induced in the
power generation and retail segments, while transmission and distribution remain
regulated regional monopolies (METI 2015c). Power generation companies with
more than 10 MW capacity (including RE capacity) must notify the authorities and
regularly submit power supply plans. Retailers are subject to registration and
approval by the authorities, must demonstrate sufficient and secure capacity of
power supply, and must comply with so-called balancing rules, which require them
to strictly observe their supply plans and otherwise impose penalties for deviations.
In the final step, Step 3, the government will aim for an unbundling of the
transmission/distribution business from the generation and retail business and the
legal and organizational separation of the three business segments (METI 2014).
The objective is to strengthen the neutrality of the transmission/distribution sector
and to secure open and fair third-party access. For electricity, unbundling will be
implemented starting 1 April 2020 and for gas in 2022. At the same time, gas and
electricity rates will become fully deregulated.
The general direction of Japan’s energy policy promises a far-reaching overhaul
of the country’s energy system. The RE business in Japan will be profoundly
affected by these fundamental reforms. With regard to power generation and
transmission, RE investment is influenced by how promotional policies for RE
are aligned with the reform of Japan’s energy system, in particular in relation to
market access, grid connection, and system integration. With respect to the retail
segment, labeling and marketing rules for RE, balancing requirements for RE
suppliers and retailers, and the development of wholesale markets will determine
the extent to which consumers can enjoy transparency and true choice.
3
With about 84 million customer contracts valued at JPY 75trillion (approx. USD 825 billion), this
segment accounts for around 40 % of Japan’s electricity market.
1.2 Promotional Policies for Renewable Energy
Policies promoting RE in Japan have a rather long history, starting with the
Sunshine Project in 1973, the Energy Efficiency Law in 1979, and the Non-Fossil
Fuel Energy Law in 1980, which promoted energy conservation as well as research
and development for alternative energies as a reaction to the two oil crises (Jordan-
Korte 2011). Since the mid-1990s, the Japanese government has enacted a series of
laws to promote RE as part of Japan’s international commitments to climate change
mitigation. In 1992, a policy was initiated that aimed for RE deployment by means
of voluntary purchase agreements between electric utilities and RE providers. In
1994 it launched the 70,000 Solar Roofs subsidy program to promote the installa-
tion of photovoltaic (PV) systems in residential areas. Most noteworthy is the 1997
Special Measures Law Concerning the Use of New Energy by Electric Utilities,
which was amended in 2002. The law, usually referred to as the Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS) law, set annual targets for the use of RE and obligated
electric utilities and retailers to generate RE by themselves, purchase the required
amounts from RE providers, or acquire a Tradable Renewable Certificate of
renewable electricity production from other suppliers. The law for the first time
established an institutional framework for integrating RE into the electricity mar-
ket, thereby stimulating RE-related investment. PV power received a further boost
from the New Buyback Program for Photovoltaic Generation, which was launched
in 2009. Instead of setting targets for RE purchases at market prices, the buyback
scheme guaranteed purchases of surplus electricity from PV power systems at a
fixed price for 10 years. As a result of these various policies, Japan emerged as the
world’s leading producer of solar energy in the early years of the millennium
(Jordan-Korte 2011; METI 2011).
The RPS law and PV buyback program was replaced by the Special Law to
Promote Renewable Energy, which came into effect in July 2012 and finally
introduced a full-fledged feed-in tariff (FIT) scheme for RE. The FIT law calls
for a 3-year period of accelerated growth of RE development and requires
(in principle) electric utilities to connect RE power plants to the grid and purchase
the generated electricity at rather generous FITs guaranteed for 20 years (METI
2012).4 It certifies and promotes five categories of RE that are further subdivided
into subsegments: PV power (below 10 kW, 10 kW and above), wind (less than
20 kW, 20 kW and above), small- and medium-scale hydropower (less than
200 kW, 200 to less than 1 MW, 1 MW to 3 MW), geothermal power (less than
15 MW, 15 MW and above), and certain forms of biomass and biogas.5
4
The exception is PV power installations below 10 kW, where purchases have been limited to
surplus energy at tariffs guaranteed for only 10 years. The FITs are subject to an annual review and
have been revised four times since 2012, most recently on April 2016, mainly lowering the rates
for solar power.
5
In the case of biomass, only the use of biomass fuel that does not harm other industries that use the
material are subject to a FIT. The energy producer must provide documentation on the source of
the certified biomass material and regularly calculate a biomass ratio (METI 2012). The reform of
The adoption of the FIT system has triggered strong growth of RE investment in
Japan, making it the world’s third largest market for RE facilities (Bloomberg
2015b). As of December 2015, the total registered RE capacity eligible for com-
pensation under the Japanese FIT program amounts to around 95 GW or about 37 %
of Japan’s total capacity of 258 GW for electricity generation (Table 1). However,
only about 35 % of the capacity (33 GW) is actually under operation,6 still an
increase of approximately 25 GW (or more than three times) since the introduction
of the FIT system (METI 2015d). The rapid growth of RE since 2011 has almost
entirely been driven by solar power, where newly installed capacity amounted to
23.7 GW (or 93 % of the total registered RE capacity), while wind (377 MW, 5 %),
biomass/biogas (344 W, 4 %), small-scale hydro (125 MW), and geothermal
(9 MW) have played a noteworthy minor role.
The recent boom in RE investment and the bias toward solar power has triggered
a controversial debate about the rise in the associated surcharge costs for consumers
and industry and about their impact on grid stability. The Japanese government
responded with a set of emergency measures in January 2015 that increased the
flexibility of the power utilities to curtail the output of RE providers, expanded the
scope of facilities as possible targets for curtailment, softened the related compen-
sation rules for curtailing RE output, and tightened the certification procedures for
new RE facilities (METI 2015e). These events have triggered a fundamental reform
of the FIT program with the intention of correcting the bias toward solar power,
reducing the cost burden, and enhancing the efficiency of RE deployment and
integration into power trading and distribution (METI 2015f). The reform measures
were approved by the Japanese Cabinet in February 2016 and will be implemented
in February 2017 (METI 2016b). The new law introduces various new schemes
(including auctions) for determining tariffs, tightens the rules for RE providers with
respect to facility certification, interconnection, and operation, and shifts the obli-
gation for grid connection and purchase of RE from the power retailer to the local
transmission operator. The transmission operator is required to sell the purchased
RE to the power wholesale market as a matter of principle or to register the supply
contract with specific retailers with the METI minister.7
the FIT law in 2015 further separated wood-fired power plants using timer from forest thinning
into smaller plants consuming less than 2000 kW and plants consuming 2000 kW to promote
smaller-scale installations. It also introduced a tariff for offshore wind.
6
Under the original scheme, the FIT was granted as soon as the planned facility had been certified.
Eager to secure higher tariffs and to increase profits, investors often certified projects with
questionable economic feasibility or postponed the start of operations, hoping for lower invest-
ment costs. As a result, many certified facilities have not yet become operational.
7
As of April 2016, METI also revised the method to calculate the compensation of purchasing
costs of RE under the FIT system: instead of calculating the so-called avoidable cost by referring to
the production costs of conventional power sources, they are now linked to trading prices on the
wholesale market. While the measure will not come into force for most existing contracts until
2020, it is applied to all new RE installations as well as for retailers who sell the purchased RE on
the wholesale power market (METI 2015h).
Table 1 RE installations in Japan under FIT (as of December 2015)
Newly registered RE installationsa RE installations under operationb Total registered capacity
Capacity (MW) % of capacity Capacity (MW) % of capacity No. of installations MW Operative (%)
Solar (<10 kW) 4256 5 8296 25 2,010,644 8955 93
Solar (>10–50 kW) 25,839 30 8120 24 347,066 25,985 31
Solar (>50–500 kW) 4058 5 2377 7 10,659 4144 57
Marketing Renewable Energy in Japan
Solar (>500–1000 kW) 4559 5 2576 8 3673 4566 56

Solar (>1000–2000 kW) 12,956 15 5057 15 3373 12,970 39
Solar (>2000kW) 28,078 33 2228 7 187 28,087 8
Wind 2339 3 2906 9 403 4868 60
Small-scale hydro 714 1 334 1 333 922 36
Geo-thermal 73 0 10 0 17 74 14
Biogas/Bio-massc 2709 3 1472 4 360 4107 36
Total 85,581 100 33,375 100 2,376,715 94,678 35
of which solar 79,746 93 28,653 86 2,375,602 84,706 34
Source: Agency for Natural Resources and Energy http://www.fit.go.jp/statistics/public_sp.html (access on May 3rd, 2016)
a
Installations subject to FIT excluding transfer of existing installations into FIT system
b
Installations subject to FIT incl. transfer of existing installations into FIT system
c
Capacity with consideration of biomass ratio
381
1.3 Regulations for Marketing RE
In the context of the reform of Japan’s energy system and FIT scheme, METI has
issued a set of regulations and guidelines that also directly affect RE marketers.
These regulations and guidelines refer, on the one hand, to balancing obligations of
RE retailers and, on the other hand, to marketing methods that seek to differentiate
RE from other energy sources by claiming specific environmental benefits.
In the liberalized power market, the registered power providers and licensed
power retailers are obliged to submit their final, daily supply and demand plans to
the transmission operator 1 h before the daily closing gate (METI 2015g). The
respective plans are divided into 30-min segments and matched accordingly.
Should supply or demand deviate from the original plan, the transmission operator
assumes the balancing responsibility and imposes imbalance fees on the party that
violated its plan. In the case of solar and wind power, which often are generated by
distributed, smaller-scale facilities and which, by nature, are unstable and depend
on weather conditions, the regulation allows for the formation of a so-called
balancing group between several power providers and a power retailer that engages
in a joint supply and purchase agreement. The balancing group is based on the
notion that demand and supply can be better matched through the combination of
several supply locations, thereby levelling the fluctuations in solar and wind power
supply. There are two cases. In case one, the transmission operator assumes the
responsibility and balancing risk for the supply plan, and the cost for the imbalance
fee are included in the FIT surcharge. In case two, the power retailer assumes these
responsibilities as well as associated costs and agrees to purchase all of the actually
produced power volume supplied by the group. These special measures reduce the
commercial risks for providers of solar and wind power and offer marketers of RE
opportunities for new business models.
During the process of deliberations about guidelines for power retailers in the
liberalized power market, two issues related to the marketing of RE received special
attention: first, the disclosure of information about the sources of the purchased
power, and second, the handling of marketing claims that attempt to differentiate
their offerings through certain qualitative attributes (e.g. environmental benefits,
regional sourcing). The latter particularly also refers to power produced under the
FIT scheme (METI 2016c). Both issues are deeply related to the broader discussion
about consumer protection, consumer choice, and anticompetitive behavior in the
liberalized power market.
Despite requests by consumers and environmental protection groups for a
mandatory, detailed disclosure of information that indicates the type of energy
source (e.g. gas, nuclear power, RE), the Japanese government decided to recom-
mend a voluntary disclosure of power sources. At the same time, it developed
detailed rules for the disclosure of sourcing information (METI 2016c).
– In case of disclosure, the guidelines prescribe eight general categories that

classify the different power sources (e.g. fossil-fuel-based power plant based
on coal/gas/oil, nuclear power, RE sources except FIT power, FIT power).

Within these categories, further specifications are possible.
– Disclosed information on power sources must be related to actual (in some cases
planned) purchases based on data from the previous year (or the actual plan).
Vague claims such as “procured power contains a high ratio of RE” or “power is
procured from stable sources” are considered inappropriate.
– The indication of RE as a power source is considered appropriate only if it is
procured outside the FIT scheme at negotiated prices or if the RE is procured
under the FIT scheme, but reimbursement for the surcharge is foregone (METI
2015h). Only in these cases is the claim of environmental benefits as an
additional value added considered legitimate because the costs are borne by
the marketer, who thereby provides incentives to invest in RE.
– FIT power refers to RE procured under the FIT scheme, and disclosure must
meet three requirements: (1) clear reference as “FIT power” without the use of
other expressions like “solar power” or “renewable power, (2) clear indication of
its volume share of the total purchases, and (3) explanation of the meaning of
“FIT power” by adding the following statement: “The costs of FIT power are
borne by the general public by means of a surcharge, thereby differing from
ordinary renewable energy sources with respect to the handling of the cost
burden and greenhouse gas emissions. It is considered similar to the nation’s
average energy mix that also contains power from fossil-fuel-based sources and
its average greenhouse gas emissions.” In the case of FIT power, the claim of
environmental benefits as a differentiating, value-adding quality attribute is
considered to be inappropriate because costs are not borne by the marketer and
no additional RE investment is initiated. Therefore, claims such as “green
power” or “clean power” are not appropriate for FIT power (METI 2016c).
– The claim “produced locally, consumed locally” (chisan chishō) is considered a
differentiating attribute that, in principle, offers additional value added to
consumers. The claim may also be associated with environmental benefits, as
the transportation losses are reduced and as often regional power is generated by
clean, renewable sources such as hydro or biomass. The claim also suggests
regional economic benefits such as employment creation or generation of
regional income. The guideline is kept rather general but requires marketers to
clearly indicate the location of the power suppliers, the regional source of the
used fuel material, and the region to which the power is mainly supplied. The
location of the suppliers and consumers should be in the same clearly specified
region.
A different scheme for the marketing of RE is the Green Energy Certification

system that was first established in 2000 with the objective of stimulating invest-
ment in RE sources (UNESCAP 2012). The mechanism splits the generated volume
of RE into two components, physical energy to be sold on the market and a tradable
certificate that represents the environmental value added of the energy generated
from the certified RE sources. By purchasing these certificates, commercial firms
and private households without their own source of renewable power or heat are
enabled to claim that they are using energy from RE sources. Importantly, FIT
power is not eligible for green energy certification except for the portion that is
consumed by the FIT power producer and not sold under the FIT scheme. Presently,
the market for green certificates is very small and has limited relevance for
marketing, although some RE providers and marketers offer the issuance of
Green Power Certificates as part of their services.8
The balancing rules and marketing guidelines for RE aim at the development of
a level, competitive, and transparent playing field that offers RE marketers new
opportunities for innovative business models based on environmental differentia-
tion. Marketers, who also invest in commercially viable RE projects, who engage in
the formation and leadership of balancing groups based on RE, who act as an
intermediary of Green Energy Certificates, or who concentrate on regional supply
and distribution of RE power may well be capable of developing competitive,
RE-based business models. However, marketers who have not secured access to
their own RE sources and who rely mainly on the procurement of FIT power face
challenging balancing requirements and strict limitations on claiming environmen-
tal benefits. Furthermore, marketers of FIT power will be exposed to additional
commercial risks because the compensation for FIT power purchases will no longer
be linked to the predefined, rather stable additional cost for the generation of
conventional power. Instead, the compensation will be tied to wholesale power
prices, which are expected to be rather volatile in the short term. Some experts,
therefore, fear that highly volatile wholesale power prices on Japan’s still rather
underdeveloped power exchange may squeeze margins of FIT power marketers
(Smart Japan 2015b).9 However, generally, the opportunities and challenges for RE
marketers depend to a large degree on how the Japanese market for RE will
develop, on consumer attitudes, and on the overall competitive landscape in the
newly liberalized retail power and gas markets.
2 The Market for RE in Japan
2.1 Consumer Attitudes
The Japanese market for renewable power is still rather small despite the recent
rapid growth in RE investment. In fiscal year 2014, purchases of RE under the FIT
scheme amounted to 28.6 TWh, or approximately 3 % of the total power consump-
tion (962T Wh) (METI website 2016a). The Institute for Sustainable Energy
Policies (ISEP), a nongovernmental think tank, estimates that in 2014, RE met
8
As of 31 March 2016, 1092 facilities with a capacity of 422 MW have been certified, and
37 partners have been signed up as intermediaries (Green Energy Certification Center website).
9
Note: Although the Japanese government aims to stimulate the development of a liquid and deep
wholesale power market, the market is still rather small. For example, the volume that was traded
on the JPeX spot market in the first half of 2015 amounts to around 1.5 % of Japan’s total power
consumption (METI 2015i).
around 12.5 % of Japan’s electricity demand, of which around 50 % represents

large-scale hydropower, while distributed forms of RE, such as solar (2.2 %),
biomass (1.5 %), small-scale hydro with less than 10 MW capacity (1.5 %), wind
(0.5 %), and geothermal (0.2 %), amount to slightly more than 6 % (ISEP 2015).10
In short, distributed forms of RE are in rather short supply, and most of it is
provided under the FIT scheme. From a supply-side point of view, this makes
Japan a seller’s market for RE and should place suppliers of RE in a favorable
competitive position. An essential question, therefore, is whether there is demand
for RE in Japan and whether Japanese consumers are willing to pay for a perceived,
additional environmental value added?
In the course of the full liberalization of the Japanese retail power market,
various surveys by the Japanese government (Smart Japan 2014, 2015c) and private
institutions (JCCU 2014a, 2015; Mizuho Research 2015; Tokyo Gas 2015; Dentsu
2016; PWC 2016) provide insights about consumer attitudes with regard to RE and
prospective purchasing patterns. While the surveys differ with respect to specific
focus and design details, the overall results can be summarized as follows:
– The Japanese public generally favors the promotion of RE (JCCU 2014a, 2015);
– Stability of supply and lower electricity rates enjoy absolute priority (>80 %)
when consumers are choosing power suppliers, ranking high above other
criteria;
– However, only about 20 % of the respondents decided or would seriously
consider switching suppliers (Smart Japan 2015c; Dentsu 2016);
– A significant number of respondents (between 23 and 61 %, depending on the
source) emphasize that they consider the share of RE as the first or second most
important criterion for supplier selection (Smart Japan 2014; Mizuho 2015) and
believe that disclosure should be made mandatory (>90 %) (JCCU 2015);
– A majority of respondents express a general willingness to pay higher prices for
the use of RE (JCCU 2014a); however, only a minority (5–22 %) intend to
actually switch at higher rates, while most will do so only at the same or lower
rates (Mizuho 2015);
– The willingness to pay for RE at somewhat higher rates has even decreased from
30.8 % in 2013 to 22 % in 2016 (PWC 2016), and people above the age of 60 are
more inclined to use RE even at higher rates than average-age and especially
younger Japanese (Mizuho 2015);
– Interestingly, a small number of Japanese consumers (11 %) expressed a prefer-
ence for local suppliers in their region (Smart Japan 2014), and a majority would
choose their local municipality or the local city gas supplier, valuing their
reliability, trustworthiness, and contribution to the local economy (Mizuho
2015).
10
The figures include RE that is not covered by the FIT system, in particular hydropower plants
with a 10–30 MW capacity. Large-scale hydropower is a long-established pillar of Japan’s energy
system, serving also as a power storage reserve for its nuclear power plants.
The results underline the paramount importance of lower electricity rates for
Japanese consumers in their choice of power suppliers. At the same time, Japanese
consumers appear rather conservative and assume a “wait-and-see” posture when
reflecting about their supplier choice. Furthermore, the surveys reveal that Japanese
consumers also value other so-called quality attributes of power suppliers, such as
reliability, stability of supply, various value-added services, and the type and
location of the power source. These attitudes, therefore, indicate that opportunities
for differentiation strategies by power providers exist in general and that there is
room for an ecology-based positioning approach by RE marketers. Although the
apparent number of consumers ready to switch to RE still seems to be quite small,
and despite a significant resistance to change itself, the high level of environmental
awareness and interest in RE, as well as a strong critical attitude toward nuclear
power, suggests a significant latent market potential for RE in Japan. Further, even
just 5 % of Japan’s 84 million retail power contracts constitute a sizable and
commercially attractive market potential of more than 4 million contracts. This
leads to the question of the actual choices presently being offered to consumers in
Japan’s liberalized power market.
2.2 The Competitive Landscape
Japan’s power market has undergone profound changes in recent years, yet the
10 large, vertically integrated utilities, like Tokyo Electric Power or Kansai Electric
Power, still enjoy an overwhelming market share in power generation and retailing
while owning the transmission and distribution grids. The Big 10 generated 68 %
(744 TWh) of Japan’s total power output of 1090 TWh in 2013, mostly based on
fossil fuels (90 %) and large-scale hydro (8 %) (FEPC 2015). They commanded a
96 % share of the retail power market in 2014 (METI Website 2016a). However,
power sales and the market share of the Big 10 have recently seen a sharp decline in
the higher-voltage market (>50 kW). The share of independent power producers
and suppliers (PPSs) has doubled within two years from 4.3 % in April 2014 to
8.6 % in February 2016, as many industrial and commercial customers have moved
away from the Big 10 owing to rising electricity rates. At the same time, the number
of registered PPS firms has increased from 55 to 127, indicating a growing intensity
of competition (Smart Japan 2016a).
Similar developments are expected in the low-voltage retail power segment that
was opened to competition on 1 April 2016. Since registration started in January
2016, the number of participants in this new market has surged to 286 (as of
18 April 2016) covering a broad range of very diverse players (Smart Japan
2016a). Besides the Big 10 and their subsidiaries (19 companies) and the long-
established PPS firms (22 firms), there are many new entrants coming from the gas
industry (51 firms), from the telecom/broadcasting/railway industry (34 firms),
from the oil industry (9 firms), and various other business fields such as retailing,
housing/construction, engineering/facility management, trading, finance, and elec-
tronics. Forty-four firms are explicitly categorized as RE suppliers, but the other
categories also have quite a number of companies with a focus on RE. Noteworthy
is also the number of regionally active firms (approx. 20 firms), many of which are
(partially) owned by municipalities (at least 13 firms), consumer cooperatives
(around 5 firms), or local citizen groups who position themselves on the “regionally
produced, regionally consumed” platform and actively promote regional RE
investment.
As of April 2016, more than 810,000 contracts have been switched to new
suppliers, most of them in the large metropolitan areas around Tokyo and Osaka.
Gas companies like Tokyo Gas or Osaka Gas have apparently grabbed the lion’s
share of new contracts (Kankyō Business online 2016; Smart Japan 2016b) by
offering attractive discount packages that combine gas and power. A similar
approach is being taken by cable TV firms like J:Com or mobile phone providers
such as Softbank or KDDI, who attract customers with discount packages that
combine power with mobile phone or TV services and often also offer the accumu-
lation of bonus points from popular bonus and e-money systems like Rakuten or
T-Points. These powerful firms also benefit from their extensive sales networks.
The liberalization of the retail power market also offers new business opportunities
for the Big 10 by invading each other’s so far protected regional markets. Their
preferred strategy is to form strategic alliances to strengthen their sales networks,
for example, Tokyo Electric Power with Softbank, Kansai Electric Power with
KDDI, the oil companies Tonen General and JX Energy, Osaka Gas with NTT
Docomo, or Chubu Electric Power with the retailer Edion and the gas firm INPEX.
A key issue from the perspective of environmentally conscious consumers is the
lack of transparency about the power source structure, which most companies are
not (yet) disclosing. Most comparison Websites, like power hikaku.com, kakaku.
com, or enechange.jp, focus on price comparisons and reveal very little information
on quality attributes like the power source structure. Environmental nongovern-
mental organizations like Greenpeace (Greenpeace Website), Friends of the Earth
(Powershift Website), or the Green Purchasing Network (GNP Website) advocate
mandatory disclosure, run campaigns under slogans such as power shift or iSwitch,
and have launched Websites that rate and promote power suppliers on the basis of
disclosure of their power source structure and carbon footprint, active promotion of
RE and support for regional or citizen-initiated RE investment, refusal to use
nuclear- or coal-fueled power, or their independence from the large utilities. At
present, the number of listed power suppliers with a focus on RE is rather limited;
for example, the Powershift Website endorses just 14 RE suppliers, most of which
are rather small with limited territorial reach.
One of the main reasons for the rather limited choice of RE suppliers is their
constrained ability to source sufficient and reliable volumes of RE because the
Japanese RE market is still comparatively small. It is also to an overwhelming
degree based on widely distributed, smaller-scale solar power, which is cumber-
some to contract and whose owners may find it more convenient to keep their
FIT-based contracts with the established Big 10. In addition, large-scale solar and
wind power facilities, as well as hydro or biomass plants, which are often favored
by RE suppliers as a stable, backup power source, are usually owned by a few large
companies that are frequently associated with the large power utilities (EU-Japan
Centre 2014). The large-scale hydro plants are owned by the Big 10 or by
municipalities who have engaged in long-term supply contracts with them (Smart
Japan 2015d). This makes it difficult to form strong RE-based balancing groups. As
a result, many suppliers that focus on RE are forced to rely on backup agreements
with suppliers of conventional power and depend to a substantial degree on
purchases from the wholesale market, which exposes them to greater commercial
risks. Their claim of environmental benefits, therefore, remains rather weak. These
constraints, on the other hand, serve as an opportunity for suppliers that secure
reliable RE sources. The following section shines a light on some interesting
emerging business models for RE marketers.
2.3 Emerging Business Models
Various types of actors entering the retail power market are positioning themselves
as RE marketers. A number of long-established PPS firms, like the market leader
Ennet, a joint venture by NTT Facilities, Tokyo Gas and Osaka Gas (Ennet
Website), Summit Energy, a 100 % subsidiary of the general trading house
Sumitomo Trading (Summit Energy Website), or Orix, one of Japan’s leading
financial service conglomerates (Orix website), emphasize their investments in
RE facilities and comparatively high share of RE power as part of their general
corporate social responsibility program. Idemitsu, one of Japan’s leading oil and
gasoline companies, has established Idemitsu Green Power and claims that 78 % of
the supplied power comes from recycling and RE facilities (e.g., wind parks,
biomass, geothermal, solar) with a combined capacity of 123 MW (Idemitsu
Green Power Website). And one of Japan’s leading IT and mobile phone providers,
Softbank, has invested heavily in RE and entered the retail power market in a tie-up
with Tokyo Electric Power. It offers a wide range of power service packages,
frequently based on combined mobile and power services, but also markets a
“FIT Power” package claiming a 67 % RE share (Softbank Power Website).
While these companies can be expected to play an important role in the emerging
RE market segment, four emerging RE-based business models from newcomers are
particularly noteworthy:
– Aggregation model based on FIT power,

– Integrated RE service providers,
– Municipality-centered balancing groups,
– Regional power retailing by consumer cooperatives.
Aggregation Model Based on FIT Power The business model of these actors is
based on the nationwide aggregation of a large number of smaller-scale solar power
installations from private households and companies, thereby securing access to
regionally diversified RE power sources. The regional diversification and aggrega-
tion make it possible to balance fluctuations in the supply of solar power during the
day, allowing these providers to offer their customers attractive rate packages for
FIT power. At the same time, they try to generate profit by selling excess RE power
to the wholesale market. Furthermore, they provide various other products and
services to their customers.
An example of the implementation of this strategy is NTT Smile Energy
(NTTSE Website). The company was founded in June 2011 as a joint venture
between Japan’s leader telecom provider NTT West (66 %) and the electronics
company Omron (34 %). It initially specialized in the marketing of the so-called
Eco Megane (Eco glasses) solar power monitoring system. The system is installed
together with solar panels and allows for real-time Internet-based and mobile
monitoring of generated solar power and the provision of service and maintenance
services for solar panels. Backed by an installation base of 40,000 units and an
aggregated capacity of 750 MW of solar power, NTTSE is expanding into trading
and retail sales of solar power in a partnership with Ennet. In 2015, it introduced a
product, Eco Megane Plus, to customers in the low-voltage segment (<50 kW) who
install solar panels with the monitoring system and allowed their customers to
purchase the generated RE power at a premium to the FIT. In this way, NTTSE is
able to aggregate regionally diversified RE power, provide forecasts on RE avail-
ability, and assure its partner Ennet a comparatively stable supply of solar power to
sell on the wholesale or Over-The-Counter (OTC) market (Smart Japan 2015e, f).
In April 2016, NTTSE entered the liberalized retail power market with a service
package that also targets customers who install new solar panels with the Eco
Megane monitoring system (Smart Japan 2016c). These customers are encouraged
to sell their excess solar power to other utilities under the prevailing FIT scheme
and to buy FIT power from NTTSE at the same rate as other utilities. The scheme
assures customers that during the day, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., they
receive 100 % solar power regardless of weather conditions and the season. Outside
this time period, NTTSE assures supply by relatively environmentally friendly
gas-generated power through its partnership with Ennet. NTTSE offers additional
rate discounts for their customers’ energy-saving efforts and promises that 1 % of
revenue from FIT power sales will be invested in new RE facilities. The scheme is
based on supply from 8000 solar power installations with a capacity of 270 MW to
service 30,000 customers nationwide.
Integrated RE Service Provider Model Another group of RE marketers that

position themselves as integrated RE service providers is composed of companies
that started in the construction business then entered the engineering, procurement,
and construction (EPC) business for RE and now seek an entry into the retail power
market. The leader in this group is Japan’s top EPC company, NTT Facilities, but
there are also younger, venturelike firms such as the West Group (West Website).
The company started in 1984 as a home builder and construction service company.
In 2007, it expanded into the sales, planning, and installation of solar systems, first
for residential houses, then for commercial customers and municipalities. Today the
West Group is one of Japan’s leading EPC firms in the solar business. It has grown
rapidly into a company with approximately JPY 46 billion (around USD 420 mil-
lion) and around 480 employees in fiscal year 2015 and is listed on the JASDAQ
stock market. Backed by its strong base in the EPC business for solar systems, the
West Group provides a wide range of RE-related services such as operation and
maintenance of RE facilities, energy management for commercial buildings, and
fund management and leasing for larger-scale solar projects. A strategic focus is
placed on providing energy consulting and management services for municipalities
and local governments in their efforts to develop integrated, local energy concepts
based on the utilization of local RE resources. To this end, in 2014 it established
West Denryoku as its retail power subsidiary in 2014 positioning itself as a one-stop
partner for regional governments with broad competencies in power generation,
power management, and conservation, as well as power trading.
Nihon Eco Systems is another example of a company seeking to leverage its
broad expertise in the EPC solar business through an entry into the power retail
market and position itself as a RE provider (Nihon Eco System Website). The
company started in 1997 as a sales company for energy-saving devices and entered
the solar business in 2000 by becoming an agent for Sharp solar systems on
residential buildings. In 2010, it expanded into the commercial segment and
established itself as an EPC provider for medium-scale solar systems for industrial
users. In 2016, it registered as a power retail company intending to generate
synergies with its residential solar system business that boasts more than 36,000
installations. For this purpose, it launched a rather unique service package under the
name Jibun Denki (my own power) (Smart Japan 2016d). Under the scheme, the
company installs solar systems on residential homes free of charge. The generated
power is owned by the company and sold under the FIT program. In exchange, the
company sells power to the homeowner, offering a competitive set of two types of
rates. The first rate relates to the self-generated solar power that is consumed by the
residential owner; the homeowner repurchases the power from the company at a
competitive rate, implying that the homeowner uses its own power. In times when
the self-generated solar power is insufficient, the company provides power it
procures from Ennet at a competitive market price. The contract runs for
20 years, after which the solar system is handed over to the homeowner. With
this scheme Nihon Eco System, which now belongs to the information technology
and telecom engineering service group Nippon Consyst, is aiming for 100,000 free-
of-charge installations within 5 years.
Yet another innovative company is Looop (Looop Website). Established in
2011, Looop started its sales business in solar power and battery systems. Its unique
approach rests on the concept of do-it-yourself product kits that are easily assem-
bled and, therefore, are also sold via the Internet. Under the My-Kit brand, Looop
first targeted the consumer segment but rapidly expanded its product range to
applications for farmers, land owners, and commercial users. At the same time,
Looop invested in its own solar facilities, often as showcases for its unique product
concepts and technologies. Since 2011, Looop has sold around 1500 kits with a
capacity of 120 MW, and its own RE investments amount to 9 MW. Looop has also
entered the retail power market and positions itself as an integrated RE provider that
gets 26 % of its power from RE sources and is endorsed by the Power Shift
campaign (Power Shift Website).
Model of Municipality-Centered Balancing Groups A number of municipalities

have founded their own local power companies aimed at regional economic devel-
opment and the utilization of local RE sources, with more expected to follow (Asahi
Digital 2016). Typically, these power companies are set up as joint ventures with
industrial partners to minimize commercial risks and gain access to professional
management know-how. Some, usually smaller, firms, like Izumisano Denryoku in
Osaka Prefecture or Ōta Denryoku in Gumma Prefecture, are majority owned by the
local city, while larger ones, often located in bigger regional cities like Kitakyushu
in Fukuoka Prefecture (960,000 inhabitants), Hamamatsu in Shizuoka Prefecture
(810,000 inhabitants), Yamagata in Yamagata Prefecture (250,000 inhabitants), or
Tottori in Tottori Prefecture (190,000 inhabitants), usually hold a minority share.
The key managerial challenge of municipality-centered power companies is
gaining secure access to RE power sources and the stabilization of power supply.
For this purpose, most schemes are created as regional balancing groups that
integrate various power sources (e.g. public sewage facilities, waste incineration,
large-scale RE facilities like solar parks, hydro, or biomass plants, and PV systems
on residential homes) with energy management and trading capabilities. Industrial
partners usually contribute larger-scale power sources like biomass plants or solar
parks and handle the operation, energy management, and trading sides of the
business. Many municipality-centered power firms have started out by supplying
power to the higher-voltage market, preferably public buildings (e.g. city office
buildings, schools, hospitals) or selected industrial facilities, but are eager to
expand into the low-voltage segment for local citizens and smaller businesses.
For example, Miyama, a city of 38,000 inhabitants on the southern island of
Kyushu, started selling power to its citizens in April 2016 (Smart Japan 2016e).
The city established the local power company Miyama Smart Energy in February
2015 as a joint venture of the city (55 %), a local energy service company
(Kitakyushu Smart Community, 40 %), and a local bank (5 %) (Miyama Smart
Energy Website). For power sourcing it relies on a 5 MW solar park and offers the
purchase of solar power at a premium over the prevailing FIT rate to those citizens
with a solar system on their roof. This serves also as an incentive to those citizens
who have not yet installed a solar system on their homes. At the same time, the city
is promoting a home energy management system (HEMS) that monitors power
consumption. The scheme helps to reduce power consumption, predict power
supply, and design rate packages in line with consumption patterns. Backed by
1200 homes with solar systems and 2000 HEMS-equipped households, Miyama
Smart Energy intends to supply power to 70 % of citizens within 3 years. It is also
considering investing in its own local power grid.
A central message of these municipalities to their local communities is their
reliability and regional roots, which commits them to regional economic and social
development. For many the entry into energy management is an essential part of a
comprehensive strategy to reduce their energy dependence and to create a regional,
circular economy that keeps income within the regions and creates new funding
sources for community services (e.g. education, child care, health care). The mayor
of Miyama points to the annual power bill of JPY 2 billion (USD 18 million) that
leaves the regional economy. Their scheme of “local generation, local consump-
tion” aims to keep these funds within the region and to use them for the support of
the local economy.
Regional Power Retailing by Consumer Cooperatives A fourth group of actors

with a promising business model as RE marketers are Japan’s powerful consumer
cooperatives, in particular the 130 community-based retail coops. With their exten-
sive retail stores and home delivery service network, more than 20 million
members, and revenues of more than USD 24 billion in 2014, retail coops are the
backbone of the Japanese Consumers’ Cooperative Union (JCCU), which itself is
the world’s largest coop organization (JCCU 2014b). As of April 2016, at least six
community-based retail coops have registered as power retailers, among them some
of Japan’s largest, like Co-op Kobe (1.7 million members), Osaka Izumi Co-op
(480,000 members), and Pal System Tokyo (440,000 members), as well as the
consumer cooperative union Seikatsu Club (300,000 members) (Smart Japan
2016f). The huge membership base, the close connection with consumers who
frequently share concerns about food safety and environmental protection, and
their strong relations with rural communities and farming establish them as con-
vincing RE marketers and makes them potentially very powerful competitors in the
regional power markets. Their main strategic challenge, however, is the lack of
sufficient and stable access to RE power sources and the associated commercial
risks of energy sourcing, trading, and management. Careful not to overstretch the
business, the consumer coops apparently take a long-term approach to developing
energy services as a third pillar next to food and health care. In a first step, many of
them have invested in their own RE power plants to provide power for their own
facilities (e.g. stores, distribution centers) and launched tie-ups with other, larger-
scale RE providers to secure a power supply. Some of them, like Seikatsu Club
Union, mobilize their member base to invest in joint RE projects like wind power
(Seikatsu Club Website) or, like Pal System Tokyo, sponsor citizen- or farmer-
based initiatives to invest in RE projects. As the first community-based retail coop,
Osaka Izumi Coop started marketing power to its members as 70 % of 70,000
respondents to an internal survey expressed an interest in procuring power from the
cooperative. More than 11,000 customers have already signed up for the new
service (Osaka Izumi Coop presentation). The cooperative already covers more
than 60 % of its own power consumption from RE sources based on its investment
in solar power (approx. 11 MW) and a tie-up with a large biomass operator.
Community-based retail coops can be seen as a spearhead of a citizen-driven
movement for regional power based on RE. Japan’s so-called Community Power
movement can look back to a long history of citizen-initiated investments in RE
projects that has gained noteworthy momentum since the Fukushima nuclear
disaster (Raupach-Sumiya and Tezuka 2017). Under the motto “Gotōchi Energy”
(Local Energy) a grassroots movement is rapidly growing eager to invest in local
RE projects and establish regional power retail operations.
3 Outlook
The Japanese market for RE is a seller’s market, constrained by the still compara-
tively low share of RE in Japan’s energy mix. Backed by growing consumer interest
in RE and the substantial purchasing power of Japanese consumers, marketers of
RE should face a promising future. However, the prospects for RE must be
evaluated within the overall regulatory and political context in Japan. The full
liberalization of Japan’s power and gas retail markets opens the industry to full-
fledged competition, and a large number of companies from various industries,
many of them financial heavyweights, have lined up to enter the market. Some of
them are visibly positioning themselves as RE marketers. Innovative business
models based on differentiation through RE and clean, regional sourcing are
emerging. Yet, uncertainties run high. On the one hand, it remains to be seen
whether liberalization will lead to truly open and fair competition, whether third-
party access to the grid will be unhindered, and whether a deep and liquid wholesale
market will develop. On the other hand, the commercial viability of the various
strategic approaches and business models is still to be proven, and consumer
attitudes must still be tested. Most importantly, the supply of RE itself needs to
grow requiring continued, high investment in RE and energy grids. The energy
policy of Japan’s government actively promotes the expansion of RE while aiming
for a more orderly and cost-efficient process of RE deployment. But the indicated,
substantial changes in the regulatory framework and promotional policies for RE
seem to raise the bar even further for RE investors and marketers.
References
Asahi Digital. (2016). 13 municipality-owned power companies are offering locally generated
power for local consumption at a discount (Jichitaidenryoku 13-sha, aitsugu setsuritsu denki
chisan chishō wariyasu), March 1, 2016. Accessed May 14, 2016, from http://digital.asahi.com/
articles/ASJ2H457VJ2HTIPE016.html?_requesturl¼articles%2FASJ2H457VJ2HTIPE016.
html&rm¼741
Bloomberg New Energy Finance. (2015a). Tokyo too bullish on nuclear, too bearish on gas and
solar. Press Release on 2.6.2015. Accessed May 3, 2016, from http://about.bnef.com/press-
releases/tokyo-bullish-nuclear-bearish-gas-solar/
Bloomberg New Energy Finance. (2015b). Global trends in renewable energy investment 2015.
Frankfurt School of Finance & Management GmbH. Accessed May 3, 2016, from http://www.
fs-unep-centre.org
Dentsu. (2016). Survey on consumer attitudes in regard to energy liberalization (Enerugi- jiyuka
ni kan-suru seikatsusha ishiki chōsa). Press release on January 22, 2016. Accessed May
6, 2016, from http://www.dentsu.co.jp/news/release/pdf-cms/2016009-0122.pdf
EU-Japan Centre for Industrial Cooperation. (2014, February). The clean energy sector in Japan—
An analysis on investment and industrial cooperation opportunities for EU SMEs, Tokyo.
Federation of Electrical Power Companies in Japan (FEPC). (2015). Electricity in Japan 2015.
Accessed May 7, 2016, from http://www.fepc.or.jp/english/library/electricity_eview_japan/__
icsFiles/afieldfile/2015/08/10/2015ERJ_full.pdf
Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies (ISEP). (2015). Renewables 2015 Japan Status Report
(Shizen enerugi- hakushō 2015), Tokyo, 2015. Accessed May 3, 2016, from http://www.isep.or.
jp/images/library/JSR2015all.pdf
Jordan-Korte, K. (2011). Government promotion of renewable energy technologies—Policy
approaches and market development in Germany, United States, and Japan. Springer Gabler.
Japanese Consumers’ Co-operative Union (JCCU). (2014a, July 2). Survey on consumer attitudes
regarding renewable energy and energy saving (Setsuden to saisei kanō enerugi- ni kan-suru
shōhisha ishiki chōsa).
Japanese Consumers’ Co-operative Union (JCCU). (2014b). Co-op 2014 facts and figures.
Accessed May 15, 2016, from http://jccu.coop/eng/public/pdf/ff_2014.pdf. Accessed May
6, 2016, from http://jccu.coop/info/press_140702_01_01.pdf
Japanese Consumers’ Co-operative Union (JCCU). (2015). Survey about consumer attitudes
regarding the future electrical power system (kore kara no denryoku no arikata nit suite no
shōhisha ishiki chōsa), May 8, 2015. Accessed May 6, 2016, from http://jccu.coop/info/press_
150508_01_01.pdf
Kankyō Business Online. (2016). One month after liberalization of power market the number of
power switching contracts exceeds 810,000—competition in the Tokyo area intensifies
(Denryoku jiy uka kara ikkagetsu—denryokukeiyaku no henkō hachij uichiman ni—Shutoken
de kyōsō gekka), May 11, 2016. Accessed May 14, 2016, from https://www.kankyo-business.
jp/news/012622.php?utm_source¼mail&utm_medium¼mail160512_d&utm_campaign¼mail
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI). (2011). Feed-in tariff scheme for renewable
energy, October 2011. Accessed May 3, 2016, from http://www.meti.go.jp/english/policy/
energy_environment/renewable/pdf/summary201209.pdf
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI). (2012). Feed-in tariff scheme in Japan, updated
on July 17, 2012. Accessed May 3, 2016, from http://www.meti.go.jp/english/policy/energy_
environment/renewable/pdf/summary201207.pdf
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI). (2014). Energy White Paper 2014. Accessed
May 3, 2016, from http://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/about/whitepaper/2014pdf/
whitepaper2014pdf_3_4.pdf
Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry (METI). (2015a). Strategic Energy Plan, April 2014
(provisional translation). Accessed May 3, 2016, from http://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/en/cate
gory/others/basic_plan/pdf/4th_strategic_energy_plan.pdf
Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry (METI). (2015b). Japan’s electricity market deregula-
tion, June 2015. Accessed May 3, 2016, from http://www.meti.go.jp/english/policy/energy_
environment/electricity_system_reform/pdf/201506EMR_in_Japan.pdf
Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry (METI). (2015c), Reform of electricity system (Denryoku
shisutemu kaikaku-ni tsuite). Accessed May 3, 2016, from http://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/
category/electricity_and_gas/electric/system_reform.html
Ministry of Economics Trade and Industry (METI). (2015d). Feed-in-tariff-system public infor-
mation website (Koteikakakukaitorihō jōhōkōhyō webusaito). Accessed May 3, 2016, from
http://www.fit.go.jp/statistics/public_sp.html
Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry (METI). (2015e). News release on January 22, 2015.
Accessed May 4, 2016, from http://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/2015/0122_02.html
Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry (METI). (2015f). Status report on the reform of the
system to promote RE deployment (saiseikanō enerugi-no dōny usokushin ni kan-suru
seidokaikaku-no kentōjōkyō nit suite hōkoku), December 27, 2015. Accessed May 4, 2016,
from http://www.meti.go.jp/committee/sougouenergy/shoene_shinene/shin_ene/pdf/015_
b02_00.pdf
Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry (METI). (2015g). Changes in working rules in the
application of the FIT system related to the full liberalization of the power retail market (Kouri
zennmenjiy uka ni muketa koteikakakukaitoriseido no unyōminaoshi nit suite), November 2015
(renewed on December 9, 2015). Accessed May 4, 2016, from http://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/
category/saving_and_new/saiene/kaitori/dl/kouri_free/20151125.pdf
Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry (METI). (2015h). About the detailed system design for
the fully liberalized power retail market—Materials submitted by the Bureau of the System
Design Working Group for the 14th meeting (Dai 14kai seido sekkei wa-kingu gru-pu
jimukyoku teishutsu shiryō—kouri zenmen jiy uka ni kakawaru shōsai seido sekkei nit suite),
July 28, 2015. Accessed May 5, 2016, from http://www.meti.go.jp/committee/sougouenergy/
kihonseisaku/denryoku_system/seido_sekkei_wg/pdf/014_06_04.pdf
Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry (METI). (2016a). Energy Reform Strategy (Enerugi-
Kakushin Senryaku), April 2016. Accessed May 3, 2016, from http://www.meti.go.jp/press/
2016/04/20160419002/20160419002-2.pdf
Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry (METI). (2016b). Outline of the draft for the partial
revision of the Special Law to Promote Renewable Energy (Denkijigyōsha ni yoru saiseikanō
enerugi-denki no chōtatsu ni kan-suru tokubetsusochihō no ichibu wo kaisei-suru hōritsuan no
gaiyō), February 2016. Accessed May 4, 2016, from http://www.meti.go.jp/press/2015/02/
20160209002/20160209002-3.pdf
Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry (METI). (2016c). Guidelines regarding retail power
marketing (Denryoku no kourieigyō ni kan-suru shishin), January 2016. Accessed May
4, 2016, from http://www.meti.go.jp/press/2015/01/20160129007/20160129007-1.pdf
Mizuho Information and Research Center (Mizuho). (2015). Survey report on the attitudes of
consumers regarding the selection criteria for retail power suppliers and services in the face of
power market liberalization (Denryoku jiyu uka ni mukete no shōhisha no denryoku kouri kigyō
sa-bisu sentaku kijun ni kan-suru ishiki chōsa chōsa ripo-to), June 8, 2015. Accessed May
6, 2016, from http://www.mizuho-ir.co.jp/publication/report/2015/pdf/e-jiyuka0608.pdf
Osaka Izumi Coop presentation material obtained at Symposium by the Miyako-no Agenda
21 Forum on April 9th, 2016 in Kyoto.
PricewaterhouseCoopers K.K. (PWC). (2016). The 2016 survey on attitudes about the retail power
market just before liberalization (Denryoku kouri shijō chōsa 2016 jiyuka chokuzen mae hen),
January 26, 2016. Accessed May 6, 2016, from http://www.pwc.com/jp/ja/japan-press-room/
press-release/2016/electricity-market-survey160226.html
Raupach-Sumiya, J., & Tezuka, T. (2017). Community power in Japan. In L. Holstenkamp &
J. Radtke (Eds.), Handbook of energy transition and participation. Heidelberg: Springer
(in press).
Smart Japan. (2014). 54% of households consider to switch their power supplier, lower electricity
rates are the most important selection criteria (Denryoku no kōny usaki wo kentō-surukatei ha
54%, ryōkin no yasusa ga saidai no sentaku riy u), June 6, 2014. Accessed May 6, 2016, from
http://www.itmedia.co.jp/smartjapan/articles/1406/30/news026.html
Smart Japan. (2015a). OCCTO starts operation on April 1 with 7 tasks (Kōiki Kikan-ga 7shurui-no
gyōmu-wo shigatsu tuitachi-ni kaishi), February 20, 2015. Accessed on May 3, 2016, from
http://www.itmedia.co.jp/smartjapan/articles/1502/20/news039.html
Smart Japan. (2015b). The FIT system changes with full liberalization of the retail power market–
link of scheme to trading prices on wholesale market (Kouri zenmen jiy uka de sai ene no kaitori
seido-ga kawaru, oroshidenryoku shijō no torihiki kakaku ni rendō), May 19, 2015. Accessed
May 5, 2016, from http://www.itmedia.co.jp/smartjapan/articles/1505/19/news037.html
Smart Japan. (2015c). 80% consider switching their power supplier/fears about power quality
(denryoku no kōny usaki henkō wo kentō-suru hito ga achiwari ni, denki no shitsu ni fuan mo),
November 24, 2015. Accessed May 6, 2016, from http://www.itmedia.co.jp/smartjapan/
articles/1511/24/news029.html
Smart Japan. (2015d). Municipalities are urged to dissolve their supply contracts with power
utilities and introduce competitive auctions (Denryoku kaisha to no baiden keiyaku wo kaish-
ō-shiyasuku, jichitai ni kyōsōny
usatsu wo onagasu), January 5, 2015. Accessed May 7, 2016,
from http://www.itmedia.co.jp/smartjapan/articles/1501/05/news010.html
Smart Japan. (2015e). NTT group purchases solar power starting operation in February in the
Tokyo area (Taiyōkō no denryoku wo NTT group ga kaitori, Tōkyō Denryoku no kannai kara
ni-gatsu ni kaishi), January 30, 2015. Accessed May 14, 2016, from http://www.itmedia.co.jp/
smartjapan/articles/1501/30/news023.html
Smart Japan. (2015f). NTT Smile Energy announces its business strategy—Raising the value of RE
through visualization (Mieruka de saisei kanō energugi- no kachi wo takameru, NTT Smile ga
jigyōsenryaku wo happyō), November 16, 2015. Accessed May 14, 2016, from http://www.
itmedia.co.jp/smartjapan/articles/1511/16/news042.html
Smart Japan. (2016a). The number of switching cases for power suppliers increases to 680,000, the
share for commercial customer to more than 8% (Denryoku kaisha kara norikaere wa
68-manken ni, kigyō muke no shea wa 8% dai kōhan), April 27, 2016. Accessed May
7, 2016, from http://www.itmedia.co.jp/smartjapan/articles/1604/27/news048.html
Smart Japan. (2016b). Tokyo Gas and Osaka Gas increase the number of new power contracts,
appealing with combined discount rate packages and disclosure of power source structure
(Denryoku no keiyaku kens u wo nobasu Tōkyō Gas and Ōsaka Gas, setto waribiki to
dengenkōsei wo api-ru), April 7, 2016. Accessed May 7, 2016, from http://www.itmedia.co.
jp/smartjapan/articles/1604/07/news048.html
Smart Japan. (2016c). NTT group starts to offer FIT power at same rate as utilities starting in May
(Denryokukaisha to dōitsuryōkin de FIT denki-wo kyōky u, NTT group ga gogatsu ni kaishi),
April 14, 2016. Accessed May 124, 2016, from http://www.itmedia.co.jp/smartjapan/articles/
1604/14/news047.html
Smart Japan. (2016d). Free-of-charge solar power installations for residential homes—The first
nationwide model for retail power sales that leverages solar power installations (J utaku ni
zero en de hatsudennsetsubi wo teikyō—taiyōkō wo katsuyō-shita zenkoku hajime no denryoku
kōuri moderu), March 22, 2016. Accessed May 14, 2016, from http://www.itmedia.co.jp/
Smart Japan. (2016e). Locally generated and consumed energy changes cities—municipalities
enter power retailing (Enerugi- no chisan chishō de machi ga kawaru, jichitai ga denryoku no
kōuri ni noridasu, January 13, 2016. Accessed May 15, 2016, from http://www.itmedia.co.jp/
Smart Japan. (2016f). Citizen Groups and Consumer Co-ops enter the power retailing business,
offering renewable energy to households (Shimin Denryoku ya Seikyō ga zokuzoku to kouri
denki jigyōsha ni, saisei kanō enerugi- wo katei he), February 5, 2016. http://www.itmedia.co.
jp/smartjapan/articles/1602/05/news105.html
Tokyo Gas. (2015). Survey on attitudes regarding energy market liberalization (Denryoku jiy uka
ni kan-suru ishiki chōsa), December 8, 2015. Accessed May 6, 2016, from http://prtimes.jp/
main/html/rd/p/000000001.000016718.html
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP). (2012).
Low carbon green growth roadmap for Asia and the Pacific: Case Studies and Policy Papers—
27. Case Study Japan Green Power Certification Scheme, January 2012. Accessed May
5, 2016, from http://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/27.%20CS-Japan-Green-Power-Cer
tificate-Scheme.pdf
Websites
Enechange Japan. Accessed May 7, 2016, from https://enechange.jp/

Ennet website. Accessed May 14, 2016, from www.ennet.co.jp/about/clean.html
The Green Energy Certification Center website. Accessed May 5, 2016, from http://eneken.ieej.or.
jp/greenpower/jp/
Greenpeace iSwitch campaign website. Accessed May 7, 2016, from https://act.greenpeace.org/
ea-action/action?ea.client.id¼1980&ea.campaign.id¼47973
Green Purchasing Network (GNP) website. Accessed May 7, 2016, from http://www.gpn.jp/
guideline/electric_power.html
Idemitsu Green Power website. Accessed May 15, 2016, from http://idemitsu.co.jp/igp/
Kakaku.Com. Accessed May 7, 2016, from http://kakaku.com/energy/

The Japan Natural Energy Company Limited website. Accessed May 5, 2016, from http://www.
natural-e.co.jp/company/index.html
Looop website. Accessed May 14, 2016, from http://looop.co.jp
Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry (METI website). (2016a). Statistics from Electrical
Power Survey (Denryoku Chōsa Tōkei), website. Accessed May 6, 2016, from http://www.
enecho.meti.go.jp/statistics/electric_power/ep002/results.html#headline1
Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry (METI website). (2016b). Public information website on
FIT system (Kotei kaitori kakaku seido jōhōkōkaiyō webusaito). Accessed May 6, 2016, from
http://www.fit.go.jp/statistics/public_sp.html
Miyama Smart Energy website. Accessed May 15, 2016, from http://www.miyama-se.com/com
pany.html
Nihon Eco System website. Accessed May 14, 2016, from http://www.j-ecosystems.co.jp
NTT Smile Energy (NTTSE website). Accessed May 8, 2016, from http://nttse.com
Orix website. Accessed May 14, 2016, from http://www.orix.co.jp/grp/business/eco/
Power Hikaku website. Accessed May 7, 2016, from http://power-hikaku.info/
Powershift. Accessed May 7, 2016, from http://power-shift.org/
Seikatsu Club website. Accessed May 15, 2016, from http://www.seikatsuclub.coop/activity/
20160122.html
Softbank Power website. Accessed May 15, from http://softbank.jp/energy/price/fit
Summit Energy website. Accessed May 14, 2016, from http://www.summit-energy.co.jp/about/
index.html
West Group website. Accessed May 14, 2016, from http://www.west-gr.co.jp/en
J€org Raupach-Sumiya received his Ph.D. at the Depart-

ment for East Asian Economic Studies, Faculty for Eco-
nomic Studies, University Duisburg/Essen, Germany. He
has been living and working in Japan since 1990. After his
business career as Senior Consultant at Roland Berger Strat-
egy Consultants (Tokyo/Japan), Managing Director at
Trumpf Corporation (Yokohama/Japan) and NEC SCHOTT
Corporation (Minakuchi/Japan), he became Professor for
International Management at the College of Business
Administration of Ritsumeikan University in Osaka, Japan,
in 2012. His main research topics include the energy indus-
try, regional economic effects of renewable energy, energy
transition, Japanese management, and the Japanese econ-
omy.

Marketing Renewable Energy PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marketing Renewable Energy PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marketing Renewable Energy PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Management for Professionals

ISSN 2192-8096 ISSN 2192-810X (electronic)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017936674

# Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Cover illustration: # Grüne Landschaft | steffi-bartels@gmx.de | 2014

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

development of RE and in a fundamentally decentralized energy system. Marc

Nürtingen, Stuttgart Carsten Herbes

Part I Foundations of Renewable Energy Marketing

Part II Special Markets and New Business Models

Driving Renewables: Business Models for the Integration of Renewable

Part III Marketing of Renewables in Regional Markets

Bruno Arcuri UCL Energy Institute, London, UK

Christian Friege and Carsten Herbes

# Springer International Publishing AG 2017 3

• Which understanding of marketing is suitable as a framework for the marketing

In what follows, each of these questions is discussed in a separate section and a

Marketing 1.0 Marketing 2.0 Marketing 3.0

Enabling Industrial Information New wave technology

How Mass buyers with Smarter consumer Whole human with

Key Product Differentiation Values

Company Product Corporate and product Corporate mission,

Value Functional Functional and Functional, emotional,

Interaction One-to-many One-to-one Many-to-many

institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging

future value proposition in marketing” (pp. 4, 20). This includes a holistic

3 Attributes of Renewable Energies and Their Effects

Renewable energies are characterized by a number of common attributes: they are

communities. In addition, the Internet also allows for the comprehensive

In principle, value-oriented marketing is more suitable for creating the

4 Aims of Consumers When Buying Renewable Energy

(1) Actual change/utilitarian benefits

Factors that can be

Utilitarian benefits Psychological benefits

Promoting certain types

(2) Psychological benefit

5 Marketing Mix for Renewable Energy

5.1 Product Policy for Renewable Energy

Product Price Policy Distribution Communica-

Commodities • Differentiated • High price • Differentiation • Marketing is

Low • Product • High price • Direct • Decisive is the

Credence • Origin defines • Competitive • Direct • Brand building

Partially • Product must • Willingness to • Convincing • Communicate

Explanations • Increased • Differentiation • Suitable for • Different

Prosumer • Strongly • Leads to • Innovative • Complex

Fig. 3 Marketing mix for renewable energy

apparent in this case. In addition, it has become increasingly clear that it is

Decisive for the product combination is the question whether an additional

5.2 Pricing Policy for Renewable Energy

Looking at the entries in the column “pricing policy” in Fig. 3, contradictions

this context, the issue of additional ecological benefits of renewable energy

• Increased supply of renewable energy, which is increasingly competitive in the

Price Comparison for Providers of Green Energy in Germany

Price positioning (2011-2012)

Grey electricity Green electricity

Fig. 4 Comparison of prices of providers of green electricity in Germany (Source: A. T. Kearney

5.3 Distribution Policy for Renewable Energy

Finally, it needs to be pointed out that innovative multiple distribution channels