Electricity disclosure is required by the EU Directive concerning the internal market in electricity. According to the directive electricity suppliers shall make available to final customers the contribution of each energy source to the overall fuel mix and at least reference to existing sources where information on CO2 emissions and the radioactive waste resulting from the electricity produced can be found. The information shall be reliable.
The systems for electricity disclosure implemented or planned to be implemented differs among the Nordic countries and some countries currently apply some kind of transitional solutions. The systems applied at present cannot be easily combined, but extensive changes would only be needed in the Finnish system. Regulations for the Swedish system are also needed.
Multiple counting (counting of e.g. environmental attributes more than once) occurs in all Nordic systems and at Nordic level as well. The Finnish system does not make corrections of environmental attributes from the electricity mix; Sweden and Norway currently apply transitional preliminary systems where the risk of multiple counting is obvious and Denmark does not yet fully apply the rules set up in their implemented system. However, in Sweden, Norway and Denmark it is likely that reliable systems will be implemented and applied – presumed that regulations for the Swedish system will be implemented according to previous plans. Multiple counting at Nordic level is a result of partly national multiple counting and partly due to application of different tracking systems, rules for import and export of electricity and attributes as well as rules and basis for correction of the residual (a residual is not at all used in Finland).
Ten business customers have been interviewed regarding their opinions, requirements and desires with respect to electricity disclosure, but a clear picture has not emerged from these interviews. Several customers pay extra for some kind of green electricity at present. Some customers are doubtful about electricity disclosure, as they don’t see why they should pay extra if no investments are actually made in new renewable electricity generation. Other customers worry that increased demand in electricity of a certain origin and a willingness to pay extra for such electricity might lead to a general increase inthe price of electricity, although such a relationship doesn’t really occur. It is worth mentioning that the interviews were carried out in late autumn 2006 where the electricity prices on the Nordic electricity market were high and the attention to climate change was high. Whether this did in fact affect the results of the interviews has not been analysed. It is concluded that several customers pay extra for electricity of a certain origin and this number will probably increase if and when a reliable system for electricity disclosure is implemented.
Alternative models for electricity disclosure have been evaluated with respect to a number of criteria. Two of these criteria were considered necessary to comply with, namely fulfilment of the EU directive on internal electricity markets (and its Note from the EU General Directorate of Transport and Energy, as well as the national laws of the Nordic countries) and maintaining the performance and efficiency of the electricity market. The evaluation clearly showed that only certificate models for tracking of electricity do comply with both these criteria. Certificate models also fulfil most of the remaining non-necessary criteria.
Conceivable designs of alternative models for electricity disclosure in the Nordic countries, i.e. a common Nordic model or separate national models with optimised reliability at Nordic level, have also been evaluated briefly. The EU directive on internal electricity markets aims at successive internalisation (regionalisation) of the European electricity markets. From this point of view it seems reasonable that the systems for electricity disclosure would follow this regionalisation, thereby suggesting a common Nordic system. However, customer related as well as political aspects could complicate such a system. We believe that the Nordic countries should co-operate to make possible a
system for electricity disclosure (whether common or not) that minimises the multiple counting and maximises the reliability at Nordic level. A possible common system must be designed carefully and thoroughly, and therefore separate national systems are preferable in the short-term, still making efforts to maximise the overall reliability.
It is of great importance that Swedish regulations are implemented as soon as possible and that the responsibility issues are solved. The Swedish system ought to be a certificate model, with a residual based on Swedish electricity mix corrected for redeemed attributes (preferably guarantees of origin) as well as import and export of electricity and attributes. To fulfil the EU directive on internal electricity markets, regulations are considered a prerequisite to assure reliability of the system at Swedish level. This would also increase the benefit for the customers. If such a system would be implemented in Sweden and Finland as well (requires conversion from existing statistical model in Finland), the reliability at Nordic level would increase substantially and the multiple counting would decrease.