Promoting citizen investment in renewable energy - experience from Germany and Switzerland
-
Upload
environmental-protection-agency-ireland -
Category
Science
-
view
233 -
download
2
Transcript of Promoting citizen investment in renewable energy - experience from Germany and Switzerland
Promoting citizen investment in renewable energy: experience from Germany and Switzerland
[email protected]://goodenergies.iwoe.unisg.ch
Prof. Dr. Rolf WüstenhagenGood Energies Chair for Management of Renewable EnergiesDirector, Institute for Economy and the EnvironmentUniversity of St. Gallen
Dublin, December 8, 2016
@wuestenhagen
2Outline
1. Status of citizen investment in renewable energy (GER & SUI)2. Drivers of citizen investment in renewable energy3. Does citizen investment increase social acceptance?4. Three caveats5. Conclusions
3German and Swiss energy transitions have resulted in a changing investor landscape
Source: Helms, Salm, Wüstenhagen 2015
Old Energy World New Energy World
Big Four, 5%
Citizen Investors,
47%
Institutional Investors,
41%
Other Utilities, 7%
4Increasing number of energy cooperatives in Germany
Source: trend:research and Leuphana 2013, DGRV 2013
• >90% of energy cooperative members are private citizens (125‘000 people)• German energy co-ops have invested €1.2bn in renewable energies (417 MW)• Solar PV & onshore wind are cooperatives‘ dominant investment targets
Num
ber o
f ene
rgy
coop
erat
ives
5Swiss Community Finance Landscape
Source: Ebers & Wüstenhagen 2015
• 60% of surveyed Swiss retail investors are interested in community finance• Of those, two thirds can imagine investing up to 1‘000 CHF, another 35%
between 1‘000 and 10‘000 CHF
6Different models of community financing RE
Level of local involvement
Pure grassroots projects
Large investor-
owned projects
Municipal utilities
co-investing (“Partnerwerke”)
Large investor with citizen
co-ownership
www.buergerkraftwerke.atwww.windpark-rheinau.chwww.appenzellerwind.ch
7Outline
1. Status of citizen investment in renewable energy 2. Drivers of citizen investment in renewable energy3. Does citizen investment increase social acceptance?4. Three caveats5. Conclusions
81) Switzerland and Germany have a strong tradition of community-owned infrastructure
Community energy, A.D. 1897: Sankt Galler Stadtwerke
Community financing, A.D. 1908:Berlin municipal utility bond
92) Energy policies creating low-risk environment RE capacity in Germany since introduction of feed-in tariff in 1990
• Between 1990 and 2015, the share of renewable energy in German power generationincreased from 3.4 to 30.0%.
• Cumulative installations by 2015 led by wind (44 GW) and solar (40 GW).• Other policy instruments can be designed in a „community-friendly“ way, too.
Source: Germ
an Federal Ministry of the Environm
enthttp://w
ww.erneuerbare-energien.de
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
Inst
alle
d C
apac
ity [M
W]
GeothermalBiomassSolar PVOffshore WindOnshore WindHydropower
103) Slow-moving incumbents......provoking citizen action
„Solar energy in Germany makes as much sense asgrowing pineapples in Alaska.“
Jürgen Großmann20.1.2012 Photo: Greenpeace Nicolas Fojtu
11Outline
1. Status of citizen investment in renewable energy 2. Drivers of citizen investment in renewable energy3. Does citizen investment increase social acceptance?4. Three caveats5. Conclusions
Source: Wüstenhagen, Wolsink & Bürer 2007
12Social Acceptance = f(Citizen Investment)?• Social acceptance of large-scale energy infrastructure (e.g.
hydro and wind) is a contested issue in Switzerland (et al.)• Using experimental empirical methods & large-scale surveys
of residents, we have investigated the relative importance of factors influencing social acceptance
• Research Questions: • What are the most important determinants of community
acceptance of hydro & wind in Switzerland?• How important are local ownership & distributional justice
(fair allocation of cost and benefit) in determining social acceptance?
• Results suggest that community energy can positively influence social acceptance
Tabi & Wüstenhagen 2015, 2017; cf. also Salm/Hille/Wüstenhagen 2016
13Data and Methods
• Two surveys using choice experiments (Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis)
• Hydro survey: N=1004, representative for Switzerland, Oct/Nov 2014
• Wind survey: N=1095, representative for 16 districts in North-Eastern Switzerland around planned wind projects, July 2015
• Recruiting via online panel (Intervista, N=60’000)
WindHydro
Source: Tabi & Wüstenhagen 2015, 2017
14Focus area of wind survey Wind
15Focus area of wind surveyWind
Source: Tabi & Wüstenhagen 2015
16
Local Ownership
Distributional Justice
Social Acceptance of Hydropower
Ecological Impact
Procedural Justice
Type of Owner
Water Tax
Jobs
Impact on Flora and Fauna
Participatory Decision-Making
Moderators:• Sociodemographic Variables• Psychographic Variables
Explaining Social Acceptance with Choice Experiments
Hydro
Source: Tabi & Wüstenhagen 2017
17
Project Developer Local Utility National Utility Cooperation of Local Utility & Specialized
Investor
Use of Proceeds No local value added Compensation to one local land owner (50’000 CHF/year)
Compensation to the Community (50’000
CHF/year)
Location On agricultural land In significantlandscape (BLN)
Close to residential area
Ecological Impact Almost none Large Small
Participation Public informationevent
Only legally required participation
Participatory siting (incl. number and
location of turbines)
O O O
Project Developer Local Utility National Utility Cooperation of Local Utility & Specialized
Investor
Use of Proceeds No local value added Compensation to one local land owner (50’000 CHF/year)
Compensation to the Community (50’000
CHF/year)
Location On agricultural land In significantlandscape (BLN)
Close to residential area
Ecological Impact Almost none Large Small
Participation Public informationevent
Only legally required participation
Participatory siting (incl. number and
location of turbines)
O O O
Project Developer Local Utility National Utility Cooperation of Local Utility & Specialized
Investor
Use of Proceeds No local value added Compensation to one local land owner (50’000 CHF/year)
Compensation to the Community (50’000
CHF/year)
Location On agricultural land In significantlandscape (BLN)
Close to residential area
Ecological Impact Almost none Large Small
Participation Public informationevent
Only legally required participation
Participatory siting (incl. number and
location of turbines)
O O O
Project Developer Local Utility National Utility Cooperation of Local Utility & Specialized
Investor
Use of Proceeds No local value added Compensation to one local land owner (50’000 CHF/year)
Compensation to the Community (50’000
CHF/year)
Location On agricultural land In significantlandscape (BLN)
Close to residential area
Ecological Impact Almost none Large Small
Participation Public informationevent
Only legally required participation
Participatory siting (incl. number and
location of turbines)
O O O
Which of the following three wind energy projects would you accept?
Sample Choice Task Wind
4 levels per attribute
Fiverelevant attributesof a wind park
11 Choice Tasks
per respondent(with varying
attribute levels)
Respondentchooses
preferred project
3 hypothetical wind parksto choose from
Tabi & Wüstenhagen 2015
18
05
1015202530354045
HydroWind
Results (1): Importance of AttributesR
elat
ive
Impo
rtan
ce [%
]WindHydro
• While environmental impact is the #1 concern of Swiss residents, local ownership and distributional justice are important drivers ofsocial acceptance.
19Results (2): The Most Preferred Wind Project
-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Nur gesetzlich vorgeschriebene Partizipation
Informationsbroschüre und Webseite
Öffentliche Informationsveranstaltung
Mitbestimmung über Anzahl und Lage der Windturbinen
Kaum lokale Wertschöpfung
Abgeltung für 1 privaten Landeigentümer (50 kCHF/Jahr)
Direkte Auszahlung an alle Einwohner (50 CHF/Kopf*Jahr)
Abgeltung an Gemeinde (50 kCHF/Jahr)
Auswärtiges Energieunternehmen
Kooperation lokales EW & spezialisierter Investor
Lokales Elektrizitätswerk (EW)
Einzelperson aus der Region
In bedeutenden Landschaften (BLN-Gebiet)
In der Nähe von Wohngebiet
Auf landwirtschaftlichen Nutzflächen
In Industrie- und Gewerbezonen
grosse
mittlere
geringe
fast keinePa
rtizi
patio
nVe
rteilu
ng
Erträ
gePr
ojek
t-en
twic
kler
Stan
dort
ökol
ogis
che
Ausw
irkun
gen
Contribution to social acceptance (Part-Worth Utilities)
Attr
ibut
es o
fa W
ind
Park
• (Co-)Investment of local utility, financial contributions to local community andlocal participation in siting decisions positively influence social acceptance.
20Outline
1. Status of citizen investment in renewable energy 2. Drivers of citizen investment in renewable energy3. Does citizen investment increase social acceptance?4. Three caveats5. Conclusions
21Caveat 1: Social acceptance changes over timePolicy makers need to be mindful of the project valley of death
DevelopmentFeasibility OperationConstruction
Project cost Project riskProject “Valley of Death”
22Caveat 2: Silent majorities vs. vocal minorities
Le Q
uotid
ien
Jura
ssie
n17
.12.
2010
http://www.arcinfo.ch/articles/regions/jura-jura-bernois/le-parc-eolien-de-st-brais-remis-en-service-596241
23Caveat 3: More players involved = higher complexity
www.energeticcommunities.org.au
24Outline
1. Status of citizen investment in renewable energy 2. Drivers of citizen investment in renewable energy3. Does citizen investment increase social acceptance?4. Three caveats5. Conclusions
25Conclusions
– Community ownership of renewable energy assets is a widespread phenomenon in Germany & Switzerland
– This has been facilitated by (a) strong tradition of community ownership in infrastructure assets, (b) energy policies that created a low-risk environment for amateur investors, (c) slow-moving incumbents provoking citizen action.
– A variety of community finance models exist, including mixed models between pure grassroots projects and large investor-owned projects.
– Community ownership tends to correlate with higher levels of social acceptance, but there are exceptions to the rule.
– TANSTAAFL in social acceptance, but it is quickly becoming a conditio sine qua non in renewable energy project development.
26Thank you!
www.es.unisg.ch/rem Gia
nluc
aSt
ricke
r(R
ollB
rettC
lub
Chu
r) @
Hal
dens
tein
, 05.
05.2
016,
Pho
to: D
anie
l Am
man
n
27Further Reading
– Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M., Bürer, M.J. (2007): Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy, 35 (5): 2683-2691.
– Tabi, A., Wüstenhagen, R. (2017): Keep it Local and Fish-Friendly: Social acceptance of hydropower projects in Switzerland. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 68: 763-773.
– Salm, S., Hille, S., Wüstenhagen, R. (2016): What are retail investors' risk-return preferences towards renewable energy projects? A choiceexperiment in Germany. Energy Policy, 97: 310-320.
– Karneyeva, Y., Wüstenhagen, R. (2017): Solar Feed-in Tariffs in a Post-Grid Parity World: The Role of Risk, Investor Diversity and Business Models. (under review)
– Ebers, A., Wüstenhagen R. (2015): 5th Consumer Barometer of Renewable Energy. Univ. St. Gallen. www.iwoe.unisg.ch/kundenbarometer
– Tabi, A., Wüstenhagen, R. (2015): Befragung der Anwohner von möglichen Windparks in der Ostschweiz [Determinants of Community Acceptance of Wind Power in Eastern Switzerland], Project Report, Univ. St. Gallen, www.iwoe.unisg.ch/ostwind
@wuestenhagen