Progress in renewable electricity in Northern Europe towards EU 2020 targets

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 1768–1780

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Progress in renewable electricity in Northern Europe towards EU 2020 targets Sam Cross a,n, Aira Hast a, Reeli Kuhi-Thalfeldt b, Sanna Syri a, Dalia Streimikiene c, Arta Denina d a

Aalto University, School of Engineering, Department of Energy Technology, P.O. Box 14100, FIN-00076 Aalto, Finland Tallinn University of Technology, Faculty of Power Engineering, Department of Electrical Power Engineering, Ehitajate tee 5, 19086 Tallinn, Estonia c Lithuanian Energy Institute, Breslaujos str. 3, LT-44403 Kaunas, Lithuania d Riga Technical University, Faculty of Engineering and Management, Meza str. 1/7, Riga 1048, Latvia b

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 5 November 2014 Received in revised form 22 May 2015 Accepted 29 July 2015

Within the EU's attempt to establish “world leadership” on energy and climate policy, Renewable Energy is an important component, with legally binding Renewables targets for 2020 established under the 2009 Renewables directive. The directive obliges EU Member states to provide “National Renewable Energy Action Plans”, setting out a detailed pathway to reaching their national-level Renewables targets under the directive. We compare actual progress in renewable electricity development against the intentions in the plans for the years 2011 and 2012, and we assess whether there are significant risks visible on failing to reach the targets. Five countries in the Nordic-Baltic region are studied: Sweden, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. These states have historical success in bioenergy and hydro development, but in general have limited experience in wind power and minimal use in solar power. We find that all five states are reaching their overall RES Electricity objective, but some countries are underperforming in newer RES technologies (e.g. wind), compensating for this by over-performing in more established technologies (e.g. biomass). This raises concern, since utilization of all available technologies will be needed to reach the 2020 targets. & 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Hydroelectric power generation Solar power generation Wind power generation Support policy Public acceptance

Contents 1. 2.

3.

4.

5.

n

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction to RES target and RES directive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. RES target and directive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. National RES action plans, interim targets and progress reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. Using RES-Electricity production data as proxy for compliance with the overall RES target. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Country overview of electricity sector and RES-E development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Overview of countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Presentation of National Renewable Energy Action Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Discussion on differences in the approach between plans for RES-Electricity development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Progress to 2012 against NREAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1. Illustration of differences for 2011 and 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2. Discussion and investigation of key differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1. Estonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2. Latvia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.3. Lithuania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.4. Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.5. Sweden. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of progress and challenges towards reaching 2020 target . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1. Comparison of capacity deployment to 2020 and subsidies for windpower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Corresponding author. E-mail address: samuel.cross@aalto.fi (S. Cross).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.165 1364-0321/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1769 1769 1769 1770 1770 1771 1771 1771 1771 1772 1772 1773 1773 1774 1774 1774 1774 1775 1775

S. Cross et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 1768–1780

5.1.1. Estonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2. Lithuania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.3. Sweden. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.4. Latvia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.5. Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2. Comparison of capacity deployment and subsidies for biomass energy generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1. Estonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2. Latvia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.3. Sweden. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.4. Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.5. Lithuania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A. Normalization rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. Introduction The European Union's 2020 targets, on which political agreement was achieved in 2007 [1], represents part of the EU's strategy to achieve world leadership in climate policy. The targets encompass a carbon reduction target of 20% by 2020 as well as a 20% target in 2020 for the share of Renewables in final energy consumption. The Renewables target is to be achieved through reaching legally binding national targets. Thus the progress in reaching these targets represents a crucial topic of study since they effectively underpin the EU's flagship climate and energy policy. This paper specifically evaluates the progress of Nordic and Baltic EU Member States in developing RES Electricity (RES-E) towards their 2020 renewables targets as set under the 2009 RES Directive [2]. The directive, containing a 20% target for RES in the EU by 2020, was brought forward together with a 20% target for carbon reduction by 2020, as part of the EU “Climate and Energy Package” [3]. In this paper, we compare the plans for RES-E laid out in the Member State National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPs) against actual progress in the Member States according to Eurostat data for 2011 and 2012. The plans contain detailed projections for renewable electricity, heating and cooling, and transport up to 2020 (the plans are outlined in Section 3.2). In effect, we take RES-Electricity as an indicative proxy of development of the entire Renewables sector. An overall motivation for this work is the importance of understanding the likelihood and upcoming challenges in member states reaching the legally binding targets. The European Commission is itself analyzing this progress but has thus far only publicly produced a progress report in 2013 based on Eurostat data for 2009 and 2010 [4]. Thus, this paper brings forward the analysis of progress by a further two years – 2011 and 2012 – for the Nordic and Baltic states. Furthermore, we can here consider some of the reasons for progress or the lack of it, such as issues of finance, licensing procedures and public acceptance. Member states are themselves required to provide biannual national progress reports to the EC, the second of which was due at the end of 2013, and covers progress until end of 2012 (many of the progress reports were in fact not submitted until 2014). However, these progress reports [5–9] have not been collated, and whilst they present quite comprehensive data, they are only required to provide overall progress in different RES energy sectors (e.g. heating, electricity) rather than in individual technologies. In our analysis, consideration is given to some of the specific national policies and conditions determining the level of progress against the plans to date and the prospect for future progress towards the 2020 objectives. A further key motivation for our work is that we have found an absence of academic literature concerning Member State progress

1769

1775 1775 1775 1776 1776 1777 1777 1777 1777 1778 1778 1779 1779 1779 1779

against their targets. This is despite, for example, a significant body of literature that has analyzed the effect of the Renewables Directive in other respects, for example within the framework of the overall EU Climate and Energy Package [10],the debate on RES trading within the directive [11], and the effect of the resulting high share of renewables on electricity markets [12]. Whilst the question of whether member states can reach the target has been referenced in the literature [13], only a very small number of recent articles reference the progress of member states in reaching the target, and even then only as an addendum to other research [14]. To a significant degree, the lack of academic research in this area is unsurprising given the relatively recent implementation of the Renewables directive, and the fact that statistics to assess subsequent member state progress to end of 2012 were not available until mid-2014. The choice of countries in this study has been defined geographically to EU Member States in the Nordic and Baltic region – Sweden, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. The choice of these countries allows for a comparison between Member States with certain similarities in RES resources – with existing exploitation of biomass and hydro, significant potential for wind power but relatively limited development thus far, and almost no solar power in place. These states already share and plan to further power market integration; the Nord pool spot operates in all of the countries; Finland and Estonia now have two undersea interconnections; and the NordBalt cable from Sweden to Lithuania received final approval in April 2013 [15]. Despite its Nordic location, Denmark has not been included given its rather different situation, with very significant experience in wind power development, with wind power already accounting for 29% of the total Danish domestic power production in 2011, compared to not more than 11% in the countries studied [16].

2. Introduction to RES target and RES directive 2.1. RES target and directive The 2009 Renewables Directive (2009/28/EC) sets a new precedent for EU policy on renewable energy sources (RES), with the 20% target for RES in total energy consumption by 2020 representing more than double the 2005 level of around 8.5% [2]. The Directive presents Member States with a huge implementation challenge that cannot simply be met by an extension of existing promotional policies for renewables. Existing academic literature provides a good background as to the formation and implementation of the directive, e.g. Giacomarra and Bono 2015 [14].

1770

S. Cross et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 1768–1780

Table 1 National effort sharing under 2009 Renewables Directive [1]. Marginal increase in share of RES required to 2020 (Δ2020)

Member State

Share of energy from RES in gross final energy consumption (FEC) in 2005 (s2005) (%)

Target for share of energy from RES in gross FEC in 2020 (s2020) (%)

Estonia Latvia Lithuania Finland Sweden

18.0 32.6 15.0 28.5 39.8

25.0 40.0 23.0 38.0 49.0

7.0 7.4 8.0 9.5 9.2

23.0 18.0 17.0 15.0 20.0

12.7 12.2 11.8 13.7 11.5

RES as % of Final Energy Consumption

For comparison only: France 10.3 Germany 5.8 Italy 5.2 UK 1.3 EU-27 8.5

60







Sweden

50

Latvia

40

Finland Estonia

30 20

Lithuania

10 0 2005

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

Year Fig. 1. Interim target trajectory by Member State [2].

The 20% target for renewable energy is calculated as a percentage of total final energy consumption, including all energy use – electricity, heating and cooling, and transport. There are no sectoral targets for electricity or heating/cooling, but a separate 10% target has been set for use of renewable energy in transport. Within the Member States covered in this article, the individual targets have been set out in Table 1. As can be seen from the table, the challenge varies significantly from one Member State to another. The fourth column (Δ2020) expresses the marginal increase in the RES share required by each Member State. In the above table, France, Germany, Italy and the UK are included for comparative purposes only. Member States have been assigned to achieve different marginal increases in their national RES percentages, on the following principles:


All Member States must achieve a marginal flat increase of 5.75%.


A further increase, based on national GDP per capita, is applied


States must adhere to, setting out in detail how they plan to reach their overall RES target through development in the three RES energy sectors – electricity, heating and cooling and transport [17]. The plans contain a total of 16 tables; for the tables concerning RES Electricity, Member States must provide year-by-year projections for both generation and capacity of different types of RES electricity. It is also notable that because the target is based on a percentage of final energy consumption, efforts to improve energy efficiency are also relevant and indeed Member States are required to set out in the plans both energy consumption according to business as usual and with enhanced energy efficiency scenarios (the latter scenario is used for the target compliance calculations in the plans). The Member States are also required to fulfill interim targets under the directive. These interim targets are expressed as a percentage of the total growth in renewables needed between the 2005 baseline percentage and the 2020 target percentage. The interim targets are based on an average of the percentage of renewable energy in final energy consumption taken over a twoyear period. The interim targets, found in part B of Annex I of the Renewables Directive, are as follows:

in addition to the flat 5.75%, such that the total of GDPmodulated targets in principle averages 5.75%. Some account is taken of significant advances in RESdevelopment already made by Member States such as Sweden and Finland (note comparison with Germany, France, Italy and UK, which have equal or lower GDP per capita but higher marginal targets).

20% 30% 45% 65%

average average average average

over over over over

the the the the

years years years years

2011 2013 2015 2017

and and and and

2012. 2014. 2016. 2018.

The graph below shows the implications of these interim targets for the five member states being studied here (Fig. 1): In the biannual progress reports the Member State is only required to report on the share of RES in the different sectors (electricity, heating and cooling, transport) in the preceding two calendar years, rather than upon individual RES technologies. The report due at the end of 2013 was the first report in which Member States report on compliance with an interim target – in this case, that for the period 2011–2012. 2.3. Using RES-Electricity production data as proxy for compliance with the overall RES target As discussed above, reaching the overall Renewables target relies on Member States making sufficient progress in the development of Renewables in the three energy sectors – electricity, heating and cooling, and transport. This paper only considers the progress of Member States in reaching their objectives in their national plans for the development of RES-Electricity, and in effect, takes their progress in this sector as something of proxy for their progress in reaching the overall target. There are several arguments in favor of using progress in RES-Electricity as a proxy in this regard:


Of the three energy sectors – electricity, heating and cooling




and transport – RES-Electricity makes the second largest contribution to reaching the target for the five countries concerned (RES heating and cooling makes the largest contribution). Estonia is an exception, where RES-Electricity makes the highest contribution (see Table 3). In case of Nordic and Baltic countries, performance in RESElectricity development is tied to RES-Heating as Biomass CHP plays a significant role in foreseen RES development.

2.2. National RES action plans, interim targets and progress reports The Directive required each Member State to submit a National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP) by 30 June 2010, setting out how it plans to achieve its 2020 target. The European Commission issued a strict template for this plan which Member

Furthermore, Member States are required to report on the sectoral share of renewable electricity as part of the progress reports mentioned above. Whilst Member State performance against the interim target will only be monitored based on their overall share of renewables, underperformance in renewable

S. Cross et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 1768–1780

1771

Table 2 Power generation mix by country (% of total domestic generation) and electricity import/export balance [16]. Country

Estonia Latvia Lithuania Finland Sweden

Generation type Thermala (%)

Thermal – of which CHP (%)

Nuclear (%)

Hydro (%)

Import/export balanceb (%)

2011

2012

2011

2012

2011

2012

2011

2012

2011

2012

2011

2012

96 50 56 38 7

95 35 55 30 6

8 100 100 64 100

10 100 100 77 99

0 0 0 32 40

0 0 0 33 38

0 47 22 16 44

0 60 19 22 47

3 1 10 1 4

4 2 11 1 4

28  20  140  19 5

19  27  131  25 12

Wind (%)

NB: gross electricity generation, not including auto-producers. a b

Fossil & Biomass, Electricity only plant and CHP. Expressed as % of total domestic generation, thus minus % ¼ net import.

electricity will make it difficult to reach the overall target. Even if the Member State reaches its overall target while underperforming on renewable electricity, it will raise questions about the Member State's general performance in renewables development and the sustainability of their approach for reaching the overall target. Indeed the European Commission considers the importance of sticking rather rigidly to the NREAPs, stating in its 2013 progress report on the targets [4]: “Deviations from national plans increase the regulatory risk faced by investors and barriers that should, but have not yet been addressed through the implementation of the renewable Energy Directive remain to be overcome” Thus the Commission also recognizes the continuing existence of barriers to the development of Renewables; we try to identify some of these barriers for the countries studied here.

3. Country overview of electricity sector and RES-E development

none of the Baltic States intend to use the limited possibilities for RES-E import from other Member States allowed under the Renewables directive [20–22]). Given that hydropower shows only limited potential for increase, the most relevant experience for future RES-E development is that in biomass and wind power. Sweden and Finland show particular experience in biomass (with Estonia having had rapid recent development), whilst Sweden has the longest experience of the states in wind power development (putting aside the somewhat misleading Lithuanian example). In the case of Estonia, one should note the high share of oil shale, which accounts for almost all fossil thermal generation; this fuel is domestically produced but gives Estonia the highest specific CO2 emission factor from electricity in the EU, of 990 gCO2/kWh [23]. Finally, it is notable that in most of the states studied, a high percentage of thermal generation is based on combined heat and power plants – this share is just over 75% in Finland in 2011 [16]. However, Estonia is an exemption here, where only 10% of thermal generation is produced by CHP plants [16]. 3.2. Presentation of National Renewable Energy Action Plans

3.1. Overview of countries As commented in the introduction, the countries studied in this paper have significant similarities in terms of availability of RES resources and existing or prospective market integration. However, in terms of current power generation (see Table 2), the states may be divided between Sweden and Finland, who have a significant share of nuclear in their generation mix – and the Baltic countries – who are more reliant on fossil thermal power but with a significant role for hydropower in Latvia and Lithuania. For the Baltic states, an overview of energy development in terms of sustainability can be found in Streimikiene 2007 [18], while an overview of the states plans for emissions reductions can be found in Roos et al. [19]. A major historical change in the energy system is notable for Lithuania, which was over 75% reliant on nuclear until 2009 [16], and was hard hit by the closure of the Ignalina nuclear power plant (unit 1 stopped at the end of 2004, unit 2 stopped at the end of 2009; this plant had to shut down as a condition of Lithuania's accession to the EU). This plant was also important in exporting power to Latvia. As can be seen in Table 2, Lithuania now has net imports amounting to over 50% more power than its total domestic generation. In this respect its 11% share of wind in domestic production is rather less impressive than at first glance. The importance of net imports is notable in terms of the 2020 RES target – as the target is based on a percentage of domestic final energy consumption, large net imports of non-RES electricity will need to be compensated by a high share of domestic RES-E generation (according to the national RES plans,

Table 3 presents a sectoral analysis of the national plans, indicating for each country what part of the target they plan to reach through RES-Electricity, heating and cooling or transport. For all Member States except Estonia, RES Heating and Cooling is foreseen to make the largest contribution to RES growth towards the 2020 target, with a typical share of over 50% of the additional RES to be developed between 2005 and 2020. As indicated, the share of electricity is typically around 30%, but is almost 45% for Estonia. The second set of tables show the data from the National Plans for RES-Electricity, with actual data for 2005 and then projected data for 2010, 2011, 2015 and 2020 (data from Table 10a/b of National Renewables Energy Action plan, [20–22,24,25]). 3.3. Discussion on differences in the approach between plans for RES-Electricity development Tables 4–8, looking at intentions for RES-Electricity development in each of the national plans, show significant variations in approach between the different countries. In all states, little or no growth is foreseen in hydropower (Estonia does foresee a 50% increase from 2005 to 2020, but the absolute numbers are very small). Likewise, solar power plays an insignificant role. Wind energy plays a major role in all Member States, starting from a rather low base in all countries except for Sweden. This lack of experience in wind development can be seen as a risk in reaching the high objectives set for wind. This contrasts with biomass

1772

S. Cross et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 1768–1780

Table 3 Sectoral analysis of national plans [20–22,24,25]. All data are ktoe (except percentages)

Estonia

Latvia

Lithuania

2005 2020 % of total RES growth 20052020a

2005 2020 % of total RES growth 20052020a

2005

RES Heating and 505 607 29.3 Cooling RES Electricity 9 165 44.8 RES Transport 0 92 26.4 Gross RES Final 515 863 Energy Consumption Gross total Final 3098 3451 Energy Consumption

Finland

2020 % of total RES 2005 growth 2005–2020a

1114 1395 51.9

688

261 7 1377

38 254 29.0 3.7 169 22.2 730 1474

446 34.2 83 14.0 1918

4241 4796

4907

1051 48.8

6084

5530

Sweden 2020

% of total RES 2005 growth 2005–2020a

2020

% of total RES growth 2005–2020a

7270 55.4

7084

10543 57.5

2030 2870 26.8 0 560 17.8 7560 10700

6605 288 13689

8356 29.1 1008 12.0 19709

26,260 28,170

34,519 39,231

Explanation: 2005 figures are actual data for 2005, the baseline year for the National plans. 2020 figures are projections from national plans, for the additional energy efficiency scenario, the key scenario by which Member States intend to reach their 2020 RES targets. a % of total RES growth 2005–2020 represents the share of growth in the particular sector (RES electricity, heating and cooling, transport) as a percentage of total RES Energy growth foreseen in the Member State from 2005 to 2020.

Table 4 Estonia: RES-Electricity development in National Plan (GWh) [20].

Table 7 Finland: RES Electricity development in National Plan (GWh) [25].

Generation type

2005

2010

2011

2012

2015

2020

Generation type

2005

2010

2011

2012

2015

2020

Hydro Solar PV Wind Solid biomass Biogas Bioliquids Total

20 0 54 33 0 0 107

26 0 337 241 0 0 604

30 0 355 307 0 0 692

30 0 432 336 0 0 798

30 0 981 346 0 0 1357

30 0 1537 346 0 0 1913

Hydro Solar PV Wind Solid biomass Biogas Bioliquids Total

13,910 0 150 9640 20 0 23,720

14,220 0 360 3930 40 4120 22,670

14,220 0 590 4520 40 4350 23,720

14,220 0 820 4760 40 4390 24,230

14,220 0 1520 5300 50 4530 25,620

14,420 0 6000 7860 270 4780 33,330

Table 5 Latvia: RES Electricity development in National Plan (GWh) [22].

Table 8 Sweden: RES Electricity development in National Plan (GWh) [24].

Generation type

2005

2010

2011

2012

2015

2020

Generation type

2005

2010

2011

2012

2015

2020

Hydro Solar PV Wind Solid biomass Biogas Bioliquids Total

2942 0 47 5 36 0 3030

2906 0 58 8 64 0 3036

2985 0 73 24 130 0 3212

2991 1 100 49 186 0 3327

2965 1 228 271 393 0 3858

3051 4 910 642 584 0 5191

Hydro Solar PV Wind Solid biomass Biogas Bioliquids Total

684,20 0 939 7452 53 65 76,929

68,280 1 4793 10,513 53 65 83,705

68,252 2 5563 11,126 53 65 85,061

68,224 2 6334 11,738 53 65 86,416

68,140 3 8646 13,574 53 65 90,481

68,000 4 12,500 16,635 53 65 97,257

of wind and biomass electricity is considered in the following section.

Table 6 Lithuania: Electricity development in National Plan (GWh) [21]. Generation type

2005

2010

2011

2012

2015

2020

Hydro Solar PV Wind Solid biomass Biogas Bioliquids Total

451 0 2 3 4 0 460

432 0 297 98 50 0 877

432 2 473 115 87 0 1109

433 3 563 161 108 0 1268

446 13 924 533 228 0 2144

470 15 1250 810 413 0 2958

electricity, where a large growth is foreseen, but as previously mentioned, both Finland and Sweden have a high experience level. However, the Baltic States have rather mixed experience – Estonia having some basis in solid biomass and Latvia in biogas, but Lithuania having had almost no experience in any type of biomass electricity generation. Whether these low levels of experience imply difficulties in reaching objectives for the development

4. Progress to 2012 against NREAP 4.1. Illustration of differences for 2011 and 2012 Tables 9 and 10 below show the differences between the national plan projections for RES-Electricity and the actual Eurostat data for 2011 and 2012. The differences are indicated in two ways, absolute and relative, explained as follows: – Absolute: this shows the difference in GWh between the NREAP and the Eurostat data for the concerned year. Therefore a positive number indicates that the Member State is in surplus compared to their NREAP objective. – Relative: this percentage indicates in relative terms how much the absolute difference is above or below the NREAP target. Therefore, a relative difference of  10% indicates that the

S. Cross et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 1768–1780

1773

Table 9 Difference between Eurostat (normalized) and NREAPs for 2011 [16,20–22,24–26]. Estonia

Hydro Geothermal Wind Biomass Solid biomass, bioliquids Biogas Total

Latvia

Lithuania

Absolute [GWh]

Relative [%]

Absolute [GWh]

Relative [%]

 10.1 0  10.3 474 459

 34 0 3 154 150

110 0 8  34  10

4 0  11  22  42

 24 67.7

 18 2

15 454

0 66

Finland

Absolute [GWh]

Sweden

Relative [%]

Absolute [GWh]

Relative [%]

Absolute [GWh]

Relative [%]

 23 0.0  64.4  44 6.0

5 0  14  22 5

 818 5.0  188 2309 2216

6 0  32 26 25

103 9.3 27.6 292 312

0 547 0 3 3

 50.0  132

 57  12

93.0 1308

233 6

 20.0 432

 38 1

Table 10 Difference between Eurostat (normalized) and NREAPs for 2012 [16,20–22,24–26]. Estonia

Hydro Geothermal Wind Biomass Solid biomass, bioliquids Biogas Total

Latvia

Lithuania

Finland

Sweden

Absolute [GWh]

Relative [%]

Absolute [GWh]

Relative [%]

Absolute [GWh]

Relative [%]

Absolute [GWh]

Relative [%]

Absolute [GWh]

3.1 0 68 665 649

10 0 16 198 193

144 0  2.0 54 17

5 0 2 23 35

 21 0 1  51 15

5 0 0  19 9

 597 5  346 1990 1891

4 0  42 22 21

506 17.1 1014 338 371

1 900 16 3 3

20 6

 56  73

 61 6

99 1051

248 4

 33 1876

 62 2

16 737

0 92

37 196

Member State is 10% below its target for the year (e.g. NREAP target 100 GWh, Eurostat 90 GWh, difference 10 GWh,  10% relative performance). It is notable that the Eurostat data for hydro and wind in 2011 and 2012 has been normalized according to the formulae set out in the Renewable Directive [2]. This normalization is necessary due to annual variations in rainfall and wind conditions that would otherwise make raw annual production data unrepresentative. The formulae imply the hydro plant output is averaged according to average capacity factors for the past 15 years of the Member State in question; for wind, the production data is adjusted according to the average capacity factor of the previous four years, or less if capacity and production data are available for fewer years, i.e. the Member State has shorter experience in the use of wind power. The normalization formulae are provided in Appendix A. Normalizing the data can imply that there are major differences compared to the actual data provided by Eurostat. For example, the actual amount of hydro power generation in Estonia was 34% higher than the normalized production in 2011 and in the same year the actual hydro power was 8% less than the normalized generation in Finland. Taking the example of wind power, in 2011 the actual wind power generation on Finland was 16% higher than the normalized production and 14% higher in Lithuania. Solar Photovoltaic is not included in Tables 9 and 10, since the intentions for its development in the national plans are minimal (see Tables 4–7).

Relative [%]

175% 150% 125% 100% 75% 50% 25%

0% -25% -50%

Hydro

Estonia

Wind

Latvia

Lithuania

Biomass

Finland

Total

Sweden

200% 175% 150% 125% 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% -25% -50%

Hydro

Estonia

Wind

Latvia

Lithuania

Biomass

Finland

Total

Sweden

4.2. Discussion and investigation of key differences

Fig. 2. Relative performance Nreap objective vs. Eurostat for RES-Electricity for 2011 and 2012 [16,20–22,24–26], (A) data for 2011, and (B) data for 2012.

It is notable that all Member States reached their objective for the RES-Electricity sector overall in both 2011 and 2012 (see Fig. 2), with Sweden over-performing by the smallest relative margin (1%). However, many Member States show a lack of consistency in their performance across different RES-Electricity technologies, which is explored in the following sub-sections.

4.2.1. Estonia Estonia shows good performance against its objectives for renewable electricity development, with an overall 66% overperformance against its RES Electricity objective in 2011 and 92% in 2012. This is particularly significant given Estonia's strong

1774

S. Cross et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 1768–1780

reliance on the RES-Electricity sector for reaching its overall target, as shown in Table 2. This significant over-performance is mainly due to increased electricity generation from biomass (193% increase for solid biomass in 2012), which was achieved through co-firing wood chips with oil shale in Balti Power Plant and building of three new CHP plants with a total electrical capacity of 65 MW. In addition, some small-scale CHP plants started operating in 2012–2013 with a unit size below 3 MW. Although expansion of biogas CHP plants was not foreseen in the national plan, the electrical capacity of biogas plants has reached 4 MW [26]. These plants use gas produced at landfill sites and from manure. For wind power, there is only a small underperformance of 3% in 2011, but in 2012 new wind parks started operating, resulting in an over-performance of 16%. The installed capacity of wind power in Estonia has increased from 31 MW in the year 2005 to 266 MW in 2012 [26]. The slight underperformance for hydropower in Estonia is not particularly significant, given the very small size of this sector and limited plans for expansion, with a production capacity of only about 8 MW. A small increase in production capacity in 2012 came from renovating old hydro turbines – no new hydro-power plants were built. Based on national statistics, we can conclude that Estonia has reached its overall objectives for RES-Electricity in 2013 [27], although the RES Electricity generation has decreased due to the ceasing of co-firing of biomass and oil shale in condensing mode (due to legislative changes in the support system for renewables, the subsidies for biomass in condensing mode were removed). Further development of wind power is a major concern, as the current support system foresees an annual generation limit of 600 GWh for subsidies paid for wind power. By the end of 2013 there were 286 MW [28] (the NREAP target for 2013 was 350 MW) of wind turbines installed in Estonia and the consequent generation is estimated to reach the annual limit in 2014. This has resulted in a situation where no new wind parks are under construction, although according to NREAP the capacity of wind power should reach 400 MW by 2015 and 650 MW by 2020. On the positive side, there is growing interest in solar PV in Estonia. In 2013 the capacity of solar photovoltaic reached 0,34 MW and their production 0,11 GWh [28]. 4.2.2. Latvia Latvia shows an interesting situation, in which there was a significant absolute over-performance in its hydropower sector (110 GWh) – only 4% in relative terms compensates for its lesssatisfactory performance in wind and biomass, which is, respectively, 11% and 22% below its objective in 2011. The background to this is a continuing discussion on the need to change the current Renewables support scheme in Latvia over the past few years, which has been based on a feed-in tariff. The situation on Renewables support to date has been extremely unstable, with four legislative changes on price setting made in the period since 2007. Currently, new plants cannot apply for support at all, with the support scheme suspended between May 2011 to the start of 2016, because of concerns about resulting price increases upon households and businesses. In the biomass sector, a significant reason for the under-performance to date is that a number of biomass CHP plants had already qualified for support but have not yet been built; the construction of these plants had been foreseen when the National Plan was drafted. A number of issues appear to be behind the problems in Renewables support in Latvia. Along with the concerns over the effect of support upon electricity tariff levels, there seems to be a lack of understanding within the Ministry of Economy about efficient price setting mechanisms and their possible application, and this has not necessarily delivered an economically efficient policy. The Latvian Energy Strategy 2030 [29] foresees the

introduction of market principles in the support design, but does not specify how this is to be achieved. Worsening the current situation, a tax on subsidized energy was introduced in November 2013, submitting Renewable generators to a retroactively applied measure that could damage investor confidence concerning policy stability Thus it is clear that Latvia needs significant changes in its RES support schemes to a stable, sufficient system that delivers the technology objectives in the National Plan. However, competing concerns over electricity tariff increases in an economically constrained environment further complicate the situation. 4.2.3. Lithuania Lithuania showed a significant underperformance in wind and biomass in 2011, leading to a significant overall underperformance of 12% against its RES-Electricity objective in that year. However, in 2012 the situation significantly improved in wind power development, with Lithuania just reaching its wind power objective for 2012. Nonetheless, biomass continued underperforming in 2012 as evidenced by its deficit in gross electricity generation from biomass worsening from 44 GWh to 51 GWh under its NREAP objective from 2011 to 2012, implying that its overall underperformance for RES-Electricity continued with a 6% deficit in 2012. This situation is particularly concerning considering the strong objective to develop the biomass sector (see Table 6) over the next years; this is further discussed in Section 5.2.5. 4.2.4. Finland Finland shows a deepening trend of underperformance in wind power, combined with an over-performance for biomass generation. The success in developing biomass-based electricity can be attributed to the strong experience in this sector. The biogas sector has also been boosted by new subsidies that came in 2011 (feed-in tariff of €83,5/MWh), although this is unlikely to have had a significant impact on the sector so far [30]. Most biogas thus far has been generation in landfills, rather than in the agricultural sector, but only the latter is covered by the new subsidies. For wind power, the situation is less positive, with the 32% underperformance in 2011 worsening to a 42% in 2012. This is despite a revised feed-in tariff for wind power coming into force in 2011, guaranteeing €83,5/MWh for 12 years, with a higher tariff for quick starters of €105,3/MWh until 2015. Much wind power developments in Finland have been held up by objections of local residents and slow permitting processes. The overall situation for Finland is concerning, as the over-performance in biomass is progressively weakening (down from 26% in 2011 to 22% in 2012) and thus Finland's overall over-performance in RESElectricity has declined from 7% in 2011 to 4% in 2012. 4.2.5. Sweden Of the countries studied, Sweden is most consistently in line with its target objectives, despite only being slightly over its overall RES-Electricity objective in both 2011 and 2012. Sweden showed a significant over-performance in wind power in 2011 of 16% (over 1000 GWh) over its objective. Sweden's success in the wind power sector provides something of a counterpoint to Finland, and Sweden's success is further discussed in Section 5 of this article. Only on biogas does Sweden show a significant underperformance although the absolute amounts here are very small compared to Sweden's overall RES-Electricity generation – 33 GWh under objective in 2012 – the biogas sector is of limited importance to Sweden's overall 2020 objective. The overall good performance is likely due to the good experience of RES development in Sweden, with a well-functioning, technology neutral, renewables certificate-based support system in existence since 2003.

S. Cross et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 1768–1780

5. Analysis of progress and challenges towards reaching 2020 target We focus here only on the major issues in the electricity sector which present a threat to the Member States reaching their overall 2020 target. Therefore, we concentrate on the progress of the wind and biomass sectors, the two largest RES-Electricity sectors foreseen to contribute to the 2020 targets.


The existing subsidy system has basically proved to be success




5.1. Comparison of capacity deployment to 2020 and subsidies for windpower Here we attempt to compare the development of windpower across the member states in question. Table 11 demonstrates that in most of the member states, the historical capacity deployment of wind power (period 2005–12) has generally been deficient compared to the required future deployment (2012–20) to meet the national plan objectives. It can be argued that this is expected, since wind power is a rather new concept in most of the member states, with the exception of Sweden; indeed only in Sweden and Lithuania does the historical deployment of wind exceeds the level of deployment needed from 2012 to 2020. However, it is also evident from Table 11 that wind power is of paramount importance for all of the member states to reach their 2020 objectives, with wind forming over 50% of the planned 2005–2020 RESElectricity generation growth for all Member States except for Lithuania, and as much as 80% for Estonia. From Table 11, we can also see that two Member States – Latvia and Finland – have a historical deployment of wind power that is very significantly outweighed by the required future deployment. Not coincidentally, these are also the two member states registering an underperformance against their national plans for wind power in 2012 – by  42% in Finland and  2% in Latvia. One of the key issues we therefore consider here is what has been restricting wind power development in these countries and what they can learn from the more successful countries. In order to reflect this approach, Finland and Latvia are discussed last in this section. 5.1.1. Estonia Considering first the situation of Estonia, the average annual build rate for wind power in Estonia in the period 2005–12 was 34 MW/year. The requirement for it to move to a build rate of 48 MW/year does not seem unobtainable, especially since 86 MW was constructed in 2012. Nonetheless, construction has since tailed off, with only 13 MW put in place in 2013 and with no major wind parks under construction in 2014 [31,32]. The current problem is that the subsidy system for wind does not support wind power production above an annual limit of 600 GWh, which is now approaching, with national data for 2013 reporting the generation of 529 GWh [31]. However, if the subsidy situation can be resolved, the prospects to reach the 2020 wind power objective are quite good, with some of the basic conditions for wind power planning and permitting being well established, for example:

1775







ful, with a feed-in premium of €53.7/MWh, above the market price, guaranteed for 12 years. A wind power spatial plan has been created for Western Estonia, where the best wind resources are located, to accelerate the progress of onshore wind development. Spatial planning for offshore wind sea areas are under way in two counties (Hiiumaa and Pärnumaa) Acceptance of wind is rather positive, in the Eurobarometer 2006 survey 79% of Estonians were in favor of wind power and only 2% opposed [33]; in a more recent survey conducted by an Estonian television channel, 58.5% of voters were directly in favor of increasing wind power utilization in Estonia [34]. Local acceptance of wind power is furthered through direct benefits to municipalities due to tax receipts (land tax, typically 2–2.5% of the land taxation price per year, also some wind park owners pay €0,32/MWh to local non-profit organizations to support local development) [35,36]. Connection proposals have been given for total over 3000 MW wind power plants, potentially indicating a strong forward development.

5.1.2. Lithuania Lithuania has been rather successful in wind development thus far; its build rate in the period 2005–12, at 39 MW/year, exceeds it required future build rate for the period 2012–20 (28 MW/year). Lithuania operates a bidding (or tendering) system for new wind capacity; this has been successful and thus it is almost exactly in line with its annual wind objectives in its national plan. Under this system, auctions are organized for each renewable technology separately under a procedure laid down by the National Control Commission for Prices and Energy. In 2012 the promotion quota for wind power was 260 MW, consisting of 210 MW for power plants to be connected to the transmission system and 50 MW for power plants to be connected to the distribution system, excluding small power plants with an installed capacity of 30 kW or less. This compares very closely to the actual capacity in place in 2012 of 275 MW. The support of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in 2012 reached 108 million LTL (€31.3 m) in Lithuania and for wind power plants in total 68 million LTL (€19.7 m) was allocated in 2012 or more than 60% of all support for electricity produced from renewable energy sources.

5.1.3. Sweden Sweden also shows an excellent situation for wind power development, with an annual build rate of 445 MW/year, compared to a required future build rate (2012–20) of only 118 MW/ year. Sweden's quota-based subsidy system has proved successful; by obliging suppliers to source a fixed percentage of electricity from Renewables on an annual basis, it has largely avoided the need to set renewable subsidy levels. The competitive situation of Renewable Electricity in general is further improved by the use of

Table 11 Wind power capacity deployment: historical (2005–2012) and required deployment to meet NREAP (2012–2020). Country

Capacity 2005 (MW) [26]

Estonia 31 Latvia 26 Lithuania 1 Finland 82 Sweden 493

Capacity 2012 (MW) [26]

Annual build rate 2005–2012 (MW/ year)

Projected capacity 2020 Required build rate (NREAP, MW) [20–22,24,25] 2012–2020 (MW/year)

Wind as percentage of total 2005–2020 RES-E development (Generation basis) (%)

266 59 275 257 3607

34 5 39 25 445

650 416 500 2500 4547

82 61 40 50 57

48 45 28 280 118

1776

S. Cross et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 1768–1780

a carbon dioxide tax in Sweden, which is levied on all fossil fuels, including those input to electricity production. Furthermore, we also find that a range of planning and permitting conditions in Sweden also creates a favorable environment for wind power. A number of existing measures are particularly notable here:

is to (re)establish a sufficient RES-Electricity support system – otherwise it faces missing not only its target for wind power, but also for all other forms of RES-Electricity generation. Notably, the challenges of the wind power sector in Latvia are further reflected in the lower profitability of Latvian wind energy companies compared to those in Latvia and Estonia [42].


From 2007–2009, and continuing into 2010, there was a special







financial support for the planning process for wind power development, with funds available to municipalities, county administrative boards, and municipal and regional cooperative bodies [24,37] Since 2010, The Swedish Energy Agency has been operating a website called Vindlov which collates up-to-date information on the permit process for wind power plants in each location in Sweden [38]. This resource is comprehensive, bringing together information from over a dozen government agencies and covering every step from concept to commissioning of the completed wind farm. As from 2009 wind power plants that require a permit in accordance with the Environmental Code [39] do not need to have a building permit, as would normally be required by the Planning and Building Act [40]. This further shortens planning lead times.

Furthermore, Sweden continues to improve the planning and permitting conditions for wind power in a manner which may prove instructive to other member states, for example by simplifying environmental assessment procedures. From June 2012, a new ordinance came into force reducing the number environmental assessment delegations for so-called “B-activities” – which cover wind power plants. In addition, a time limit for applications for these types of activities was introduced; county administrative boards must give a decision in six months unless there are special circumstances. Sweden has thus pursued an active and dynamic policy towards improving planning and permitting conditions for wind power developments. The success of Sweden's approach is selfevident from the data in Table 11, but also from nationally available data on more recent progress; Sweden reached a wind power capacity of 4736 MW on 30 June 2014, already in excess of its 2020 objective of 4500 MW [41].

5.1.4. Latvia Latvia's performance in wind power development gives cause for concern, having only developed wind power capacity at 5 MW/ year in the period 2005–12, but needing to put in place 45 MW/ year between 2012 and 2020 to reach the objective in its national plan, although against its 2012 objective, it is only 2% in deficit. However, there are a number of reasons as to why Latvia may fall further into deficit and be unable to achieve the build rates required. The existing support system has been suspended since May 2011 as the government is concerned about the consequence of increasing subsidies upon the electricity costs of households and business. This suspension is intended to continue until the start of 2016. Since 2010 there has also been a discussion about the need to redesign support framework for RES-E generation, but thus far, no concrete steps have been taken. Therefore, the entire RES support system – not just for wind power – is stalled and likely to result in problems for Latvia achieving its 2020 objectives. Furthermore, from November 2013 all RES-Electricity generators receiving existing subsidies have been subject to a 10% tax on the feed-in tariff income they receive. This is effectively a retrospective tax which will further decrease investor confidence in new Renewables development. The key outstanding challenge to Latvia

5.1.5. Finland Finland's performance in wind power development has been lacking thus far; in 2005–2012 it constructed only 25 MW of new capacity per year, and yet it needs to construct 280 MW/year in the 2012–20 period to reach its national plan objective. Furthermore, it was 42% behind its wind power production objective in 2012. One issue is that Finland's revised support scheme for renewables from 2011 has likely to have had limited effect on the development until the end of 2012 that we consider in this paper. However, the support scheme does seem broadly sufficient to promote wind power development, especially with the higher quick start amount of €105,3/MWh until the end of 2015 [30]. The Finnish government has also tried to kick-start the development of offshore wind; the government has issued €20 million of additional support for the first off-shore wind power project, and currently there are altogether nine projects competing for the support [43,44]. However, there does appear to be real barriers in the planning and permitting system, which has both limited progress to date and will prove to be a brake on forward development. A comparison with the situation of Sweden is worthwhile since both countries cover a large area with many regions and municipalities, and therefore local variations are permitting conditions. However, unlike Sweden – with its Vindlov website – Finland has not established any “one stop shop” resource for checking all permitting problems for wind power development across the entire country. Furthermore, again unlike Sweden, Finland has not established any limits on permitting/ planning applications. Finland also has some distinctive, possibly unique problems. There has been a long-running conflict over the effect of wind power development on defense radar installations, which has only been resolved from July 2013 by wind plant developers compensating defense forces for effects of the wind park upon radar. This clearly imposes an additional burden on plant developers, thereby worsening the investment case and creating further uncertainty. As far as we have been able to ascertain, Finland is the only country operating such a radar compensation scheme. However, the Finnish government does appear to recognize some of the planning problems, having established a working group for promoting wind power in May 2012 and which reported at the end of 2013 [7]. A principle issue here has been resolving the co-ordination of different administrative branches concerned in some way with wind power development and the removing of obstacles. Some notable successes have been achieved; The Finnish Transport Agency has revised guidelines on the proximity of wind turbines to transport infrastructure, almost halving the existing separation distances. In addition, the national aviation authority, Finavia, has opened up some areas to wind turbines development that were previously restricted due to concerns over proximity to flight paths. However, progress in some areas has been slow; a working group was set up in October 2012 to set up a “point of contact” system for better reconciling the Environment Impact Assessment procedure and land-use planning, but this does not yet appear to have achieved concrete results. It is argued here that Finland has rather urgent needs to address the planning and permitting framework, and not in the least consider some of the measures taken in neighboring Sweden – especially the Vindlov information website, time limits on permits, and reducing

S. Cross et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 1768–1780

1777

Table 12 Biomass capacity deployment: historical (2005–2012) and required deployment to meet NREAP (2012–2020). Country

Capacity 2005 (MW) [26]

Estonia 10 Latvia 10 Lithuania 5 Finland 2140 Sweden 2582

Capacity 2012 (MW) [26]

Annual build rate Projected capacity 2020 Required build rate 20052012 (MW/year) (NREAP, MW) [20–22,24,25] 2012–2020 (MW/year)

Biomass as percentage of total 2005–2020 RES-E development (Generation basis) (%)

163 25 41 198 2720

22 3 5  27 23

17 34 55 49 45

N/A 200 224 2869 2928

N/A 22 24 322 323

NB: Estonia did not provide the capacity data in its NREAP required for the above table.

the complexity of planning procedures. In addition, it would appear to be sensible to consider whether the new compensation system from 2013 on defense radar impacts is continuing to discourage wind power developments. 5.2. Comparison of capacity deployment and subsidies for biomass energy generation As for wind power, we here compare the historical deployment of biomass power generation to the future deployment required in order to reach the 2020 targets. However it must first be pointed out that the nature of biomass power generation is quite different from wind power as it relies not only on sufficient capacity being put in place, but also upon adequate biomass fuel supplies being available. As can be seen from Table 12, biomass power generation is important to all member states reaching their 2020 objectives, with the possible exception of Estonia, for whom biomass only forms 17% of the 2005–2020 RES generation growth. In the case of Sweden and Finland, Biomass is a historically important source of energy, and most biomass use in the energy sector is in the energy-efficient CHP plants. For Latvia and Lithuania, it has not been historically important but is a large part of their 2020 RES-E efforts, 34% and 55% of total RES-E growth, respectively, although the absolute numbers are rather small as both their overall demand and percentage growth of Renewables required to reach their 2020 target are much lower compared to Sweden and Finland. As in the last section, the countries are discussed here in order of the level of challenge they face reaching their 2020 objective – thus Estonia, with the least challenge, is considered first, followed by Latvia, Sweden, Finland and Lithuania. 5.2.1. Estonia Unlike other national plans, Estonia's plan does not provide data on biomass capacity growth but only for generation, with a planned increase from 33 GWh in 2005 to 336 GWh in 2012. Little further growth is foreseen; the 2020 objective is only 346 GWh, but Estonia already exceeded its 2012 objective by 665 GWh, almost 200% in relative terms. This growth has primarily been met by the co-firing of wood chips with oil shale (local fossil fuel) in the Balti power plant (one unit with an electrical capacity of 192 MW using 20% of wood chips and 80% oil shale). This trend may diminish, since as of 1 July 2010, support is only given to biomass combustion in cogeneration plants. However, three new CHP plants with a total electrical capacity of 65 MW will anyway cover the rather limited objective. The approach of only supporting cogeneration is logical since the largest amount of biomass final energy (heat and electricity) is produced for each unit of primary biomass. Furthermore, this is perhaps an even more logical policy for Estonia, since it has a lower proportion of CHP than in the other countries studied (see Section 3.1) and thus there is a significant opportunity for the expansion of this sector in general.

5.2.2. Latvia Latvia appears to show a significant deficit between historical capacity deployment and that needed to reach the 2020 target, with only 3 MW/year of biomass generation put in place from 2005–12 but needed to construct 22 MW/year between 2012 and 2020. It did, however, exceed its 2012 generation objective by 53%. However, here the same problem applies as for the wind power sector; the Renewables support system has been suspended from May 2011 until the beginning of 2016. This is by far the biggest obstacle to Latvia not realizing its objectives for bioenergy – and indeed other renewables.

5.2.3. Sweden Sweden exceeded its overall biomass objective for 2012 by 3%, but still appears to face some challenge in reaching its 2020 objective since its required capacity growth rate in the period 2012–2020, at 323 MW/year, greatly exceeds its 2005–12 rate of 23 MW/year. Sweden's objectives for biomass generation are almost entirely focused upon solid biomass, increasing from 11,738 GWh in 2012 to 16,635 GWh in 2020 out of a total biomass production of 16,689 GWh. To reach this objective, Sweden's own national plan sets out two key issues: the need to increase feedstock in general – especially agricultural and imported biomass, and secondly to cope with possible changes in the pulp industry – a situation analogous with Finland. We can make an analysis of this situation using the data in Table 13 below. This table compares primary production of biomass in the NREAPs to the total primary biomass demand in 2020 required to meet biomass objectives in the NREAPs, according to scenarios built in a separate study by the lead author of this article. From this, we can see that from 2006–2020, Sweden foresees the largest proportional increase will come from direct forest biomass (32% increase) and biomass from waste (57% increase). An increase of only 12% is foreseen in indirect forest biomass – i.e. sawmill and pulp/paper industry residues, and even this can be questioned given the uncertain future of this sector. However, what is particularly notable is the deficit between estimated demand and production noted in 2013. Sweden's deficit in 2020, of 4800 ktoe, represents over 30% of the total demand and could represent a seriously constraining factor. Whilst the demand is only an estimated one, it is based on the final energy consumption data for Sweden in 2020 in its national plan; furthermore, its validity is enhanced by the fact that the stated deficit would be even higher if Sweden fails to achieve the overall 17% increase in biomass production it foresees. Thus, Sweden faces a significant challenge in mobilizing the amount of biomass needed to fulfill its objectives, and indeed in ensuring sufficient imports. However, it is important to note that the challenging objectives for solid biomass are unlikely to threaten Sweden's overall compliance with its 2020 Renewable objective, since Sweden already reached a total share of 51% of RES in final energy consumption in 2012 – already exceeding its 49% target for 2020 [7].

1778

S. Cross et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 1768–1780

Table 13 Comparison of actual/estimated primary production of biomass and estimated biomass demand in 2020 for Sweden and Finland. Country Biomass origin

Total biomass primary energy production (ktoe) (NREAPs) [20– 22,24,25] 2006 Actual

Finland

Sweden

Direct supply of wood from forests e.g. fellings and 1446 residues from fellings Indirect supply of wood biomass e.g. sawmill residues, 5932 pulp and paper industry by-products Biomass from agriculture and fisheries 67 Biomass from waste 137 Total 7582 Direct supply of wood from forests Indirect supply of wood biomass Biomass from agriculture and fisheries Biomass from waste Total

2065 6160 617 764 9606

2015 Proj.

2020 Proj.

2020 Demand inc. transport 2020 Deficit between demand biofuels [45] (ktoe) and production (ktoe)

% Change 2006–2020

2380

3230

123

4600

4830  19

248 160 7388

497 190 8747

642 39 15

12,726

 3981

2463 2724 32 6665 6904 12 322 408  34 926 1202 57 10,376 11,238 17

16,079

 4841

5.2.4. Finland Finland's 22% surplus over its 2012 biomass electricity generation objective masks a significant challenge in reversing a net decline in generating capacity (27 MW/year lost 2005–12) and putting in place an average of 33 MW/year in the period from 2012–20. Thus far, a large part of solid biomass electricity production in Finland is co-firing with fossil fuels – primarily coal and peat – and the incentive for this is primarily determined by the permit price in the EU Emissions Trading system (ETS) – i.e. a high price disincentivizes coal and peat use. Many plants in Finland can be quite responsive to this as they can combust variable proportions of coal, peat and biomass in accordance with fuel and ETS permit prices; recent low permit prices have not been favorable to biomass combustion in this respect. Finland does offer subsidies for wood chips which are conditional upon ETS permit prices; these subsidies had a maximum level of €18/MWh in 2011–12 (based on energy content of the fuel), conditional upon ETS prices below €10/tonCO2 [30]. These subsidies are now declining in line with rising taxes on peat use; in 2013, the level was decreased to €13.13/MWh, and in 2015 it will be €11.31/MWh (again conditional on ETS permit prices below €10/tonCO2) [30]. With higher ETS prices, support decreases gradually. However, such subsidies are insufficient to incentivize new biomass capacity and have only weakly encouraged biomass use in existing cofirings, given that recent coal and ETS permit prices have been so low. Furthermore, generating capacity has been lost due to the closure of pulp and paper plants with often include significant biomass electricity and heat production capacity. In addition, the closure of the latter threatens the supply of secondary forest biomass products to the energy sector – a concern which is also noted in Sweden's national plan but which appears to have had more impact in Finland thus far. In the absence of major changes in ETS permits or fossil fuels prices up until 2020, Finland's problems in the bioenergy sector are thus two-fold – to promote the construction of new bioenergy plants – possibly by the use of more generous subsidies; and secondly of managing the effect of closures of pulp and paper plants both upon biomass plant capacity and upon the supply of secondary forest biomass products from these industries. Table 13 provides some perspective on the scale of this challenge, indicating that Finland foresees a 13% decrease in indirect supply of forest biomass – primarily from the mentioned industries. Admittedly, some of this import requirement would be transport biofuels; indeed many member states intend to import biofuels in ready

form, but in reality Finland plans to produce significant quantities of its own biofuels in biorefineries using domestic forest biomass. Interestingly, Finland does not foresee any biomass import in its national plan; this must be regarded as over optimistic given the data in Table 13. However, it is notable that Finland has very low ambitions for the use of biomass from waste, intending only to expand utilized waste feedstock by 39%. This is interesting since Sweden intends to expand it by 57%, and yet Sweden already has a large waste to energy sector, with 52% of municipal waste combusted in 2012 compared to only 34% in Finland [46]. Thus we could argue that if Finland undertook greater development of the waste to energy sector, it could do much to reduce the need to imported biomass. Otherwise, it may face difficulties in fulfilling its objectives for biomass in 2020. 5.2.5. Lithuania Lithuania faces the challenge to move to a capacity deployment of 5 MW/year in the period 2005–12 to reach an average 24 MW/ year in the period 2012–2020. It is of further concern that the country is already significantly in deficit against its 2012 biomass generation target, with an underperformance of 19%. Nonetheless Lithuania has taken some action to address financing new capacity, by looking into the possibility of international co-operation allowed under the Renewables directive, which could address the problem of limited local financing potential. The co-operation mechanisms within the Renewables directive allow for renewables developed in one member state to be partly or wholly counted towards the target of another member state – typically the member state who financed the Renewables. In general the concept is to develop Renewables in the cheapest location; e.g. a more wealthy country with a high RES target may find it more economical to develop RES in a poorer country with better RES possibilities, and the final output of a plant may be shared by both member states. The Lithuanian Ministry of Energy commissioned the survey ‘Evaluation of international cooperation in promoting the use of energy from renewable sources’ [8], which found that the largest potential for the implementation of joint projects in Lithuania is to be found in district heating systems (DH) where the annual heat demand does not exceed 50 GWh, i.e. these DH systems would be converted to biomass. On 28 February 2011 Lithuania signed a memorandum of understanding with Luxembourg concerning cooperation in the sphere of energy from renewable sources, including the opportunities for statistical transfers and joint projects [8]. It could be argued that use of

S. Cross et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 1768–1780

these co-operation mechanisms could be an important part of Lithuania deploying sufficient capacity, providing the output of such capacity is shared and not entirely dedicated to the other member state (co-)financing the facility.

6. Conclusions Overall, our analysis of the progress of Nordic and Baltic States in reaching their objectives for RES-Electricity development shows rather positive progress, given that all Member States reached their overall RES-Electricity sectoral objectives in 2011 and in 2012. However, several Member States – most notably Lithuania and Finland – under-perform in some forms of RES-Electricity generation, raising questions about their overall strategy and the sustainability of them continuing to reach their sectoral objective for RES-Electricity in future years. Indeed, where Member States have reached their overall RES-Electricity objective by substituting under-performance in one form of RES-Electricity generation with over-performance in another, it can be argued that the state has exploited the “lowest hanging fruit” first and faces a greater challenge in developing the other technologies in future years. To reach their overall 2020 target, Member States will need to utilize all the forms of RES-Electricity identified in their National Plans. Whilst there is room for some substitution between different forms, the reliance on biomass electricity will be significantly restrained at a certain point by resource constraints and rising costs. A number of specific observations can be made about the progress of the Nordic and Baltic States in their development of RES Electricity thus far:


The underperformance in wind power in Latvia and Finland, is










particularly concerning given the central role of wind power in all of the National Plans. The Member States typically overperform in sectors in which they have previous experience, e.g. biomass in Finland and hydro in Lithuania. In order to reach their overall 2020 objectives, Member States must also achieve development of RES-Electricity technologies in which they have little experience. Lack of capacity building in these sectors at this stage will lead to problems with the more ambitious annual growth projects for these technologies in the later period e.g. 2015–2020. A significant part of existing biomass electricity in the Baltic States appears to be from co-firing. The use of significant cofiring, especially when it involves rather low proportions of biomass combusted with fossil fuels, can be argued to be somewhat against the spirit of the Renewables Directive, in that it can imply the continued operation of high carbon emitting plant. Despite over-performance in the overall RES-Electricity sector, the Baltic States show the most unbalanced approach, with over-performance in some RES-E technologies apparently caused by a single or small number of large plant investments or renovations. As these initial possibilities are exhausted, and as overall volumes grow, the potential to ensure compliance with the overall RES-Electricity sectoral objective through such means will diminish. The performance of these states against their objectives should be particularly closely followed in future years. Maintaining growth in the biomass electricity sector will require more active policies on biomass capacity deployment and biomass mobilization, especially in Finland and Sweden, where the likely decline of the pulp and paper and sawmill industries will reduce both production of biomass energy within the industries and reduce supplies of indirect forms of forest-based biomass to the dedicated biomass energy sector.

1779

The consequences of the member states here failing to make up losses in the wind sector and maintaining good progress in the biomass sector represent a threat to the member states reaching their overall RES targets, with the exception of Sweden, which has already reached its target. The drawbacks noticed here highlight the importance of the European Commission paying close attention to member state progress towards the target, and fully making use of the provisions in the Renewables target concerning the interim target trajectory; that is, if member states fall off the target trajectory they are required to submit a revised national plan within the following six months, indicating how it intends to re-align with the trajectory. Given the nature of the steepening target trajectory, this question will become of increasing importance at the passing of each point on the trajectory. Thus further research on this topic would be particularly pertinent when data is available to assess compliance with the 2013–14 interim target – i.e. in late 2015 or early 2016.

Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge the support of the Academy of Finland Doctoral School for Energy Efficiency and Energy Systems. This research was also supported by European Social Fund's Doctoral Studies and Internationalisation Programme DoRa, which is carried out by Foundation Archimedes, Estonia.

Appendix A. Normalization rule The hydro and wind power production depends on climatic and weather conditions and in order to smooth the effects of annual variation in the generation, the Directive 2009/28/EC requires the use of normalization rule as specified in Annex II. Equation A.1: Normalization rule for accounting for electricity generated from hydropower. (Directive 2009/28/EC): $ % N X Qi Q NðnormÞ ¼ C N  =15 C i ¼ N  14 i where: N ¼ reference year, QN(norm) ¼ normalized electricity generation by hydropower in year N, Qi ¼the quantity of electricity generated (excluding production from pumped storage) in year i measured in GWh, Ci ¼the total installed capacity of hydropower at the end of year i measured in MW, CN ¼ the total installed capacity of hydropower in year N measured in MW Equation A.2: Normalization rule for accounting for electricity generated from wind power (Directive 2009/28/EC): PN CN þ CN  1 Q i¼N  n i  Q NðnormÞ ¼ P Cj þ Cj  1 N 2 j ¼ Nn

2

where: N ¼ reference year, QN(norm) ¼ ¼normalized electricity generated by wind power in year N, Qi ¼the quantity of electricity generated in year i measured in GWh, Cj ¼ the total installed capacity of wind power at the end of year j measured in MW, n ¼4 (or the number of years preceding year N for which capacity and production data are available, whichever is lower), CN ¼the total installed capacity of hydropower in year N measured in MW References [1] Council of the European Union. Brussels European Council 8/9March 2007 Presidency Conclusions. 〈http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/ docs/pressdata/en/ec/93135.pdf〉; 2007 [accessed 15.06.14]. [2] 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

1780

[3] [4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11] [12]

[13] [14]

[15] [16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

S. Cross et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 1768–1780 [2009] OJ L 140/16. 〈eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=Oj: L:2009:140:0016:0062:en:PDF〉; n.d. [accessed 01.02.13]. European Commission. The EU climate and energy package. 〈http://ec.europa. eu/clima/policies/package/index_en.htm〉; 2009 [accessed 14.04.13]. European Commission, Renewable energy progress report COM (2013) 175 Final. 〈http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/reports/doc/com_2013_0175_ res_en.pdf〉; 2013 [accessed 22.07.14]. Government Offices of Sweden. Sweden's second progress report on the development of renewable energy pursuant to Article 22 of Directive 2009/ 28/EC. 〈http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/reports/2013_en.htm〉; 2013. Republic of Estonia. A progress report on the promotion and use of energy from renewable sources from the Republic of Estonia to the European Commission. 〈http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/reports/2013_en.htm〉; 2014. Republic of Finland. Finland's second progress report according to article 22 of directive 2009/28/EC. 〈http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/reports/2013_ en.htm〉; 2013. Republic of Lithuania, Progress report of the Republic of Lithuania on the promotion and use of renewable energy sources. 〈http://ec.europa.eu/energy/ renewables/reports/2013_en.htm〉; 2013. Republic of Latvia. Republic of Latvia Second Regular Report pursuant to Article 22 of 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. 〈http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/reports/ 2013_en.htm〉; 2013. Capros P, Mantzos L, Parousos L, Tasios N, Klaassen G, Van Ierland T. Analysis of the EU policy package on climate change and renewables. Energy Policy 2011;39:1476–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.12.020. Toke D. The EU Renewables Directive—what is the fuss about trading? Energy Policy 2008;36:3001–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.04.008. Schleicher-Tappeser R. How renewables will change electricity markets in the next five years. Energy Policy: Special Sect Front Sustain 2012;48:64–75. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.042. Parkes R. Can the UK meet its renewables targets? Renew Energy Focus 2012;13:24–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1755-0084(12)70011-X. Giacomarra M, Bono F. European Union commitment towards RES market penetration: from the first legislative acts to the publication of the recent guidelines on State aid 2014/2020. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;47:218–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.006. Argus Media. Sweden–Lithuania interconnector gets go-ahead. 〈http://www.argusme diagroup.com/News/Article?id=843335®ion=22001〉; 2013 [accessed 20.03.13]. Eurostat. Supply, transformation, consumption – electricity – annual data. 〈http:// appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do? dataset=nrg_105a&lang=en〉; 2014 [accessed 7.05.14]. European Commission Decision of 30.6.2009 establishing a template for National Renewable Energy Action Plans under directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the council C [2009] 5174-1. 〈http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renew ables/doc/nreap__adoptedversion__30_june_en.pdf〉; n.d. [accessed 01.02.13]. Streimikiene D, Ciegis R, Grundey D. Energy indicators for sustainable development in Baltic States. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2007;11:877–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2005.06.004. Roos I, Soosaar S, Volkova A, Streimikene D. Greenhouse gas emission reduction perspectives in the Baltic States in frames of EU energy and climate policy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:2133–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.rser.2012.01.013. Republic of Estonia. National Renewable Energy Action Plan for implementing Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. 〈http:// ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/action_plan_en.htm〉; 2010 [accessed 01.12.12]. Republic of Lithuania. National Renewable Energy Action Plan for implementing Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. 〈http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/action_plan_en.htm〉; 2010 [accessed 01.12.12]. Republic of Latvia. National Renewable Energy Action Plan for implementing Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. 〈http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/action_plan_en.htm〉; 2010 [accessed 01.12.12]. European Environment Agency. CO2 (g) per KWh in 2009 (electricity only). 〈http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/co2-electricity-gper-kwh〉; 2011 [accessed 22.03.13]. Kingdom of Sweden. The Swedish National Action Plan for the promotion of the use of renewable energy in accordance with Directive 2009/28/EC. 〈http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/action_plan_en.htm〉; 2010 [accessed 01.03.12].

[25] Republic of Finland. Finland's national action plan for promoting energy from renewable sources pursuant to Directive 2009/28/EC. 〈http://ec.europa.eu/ energy/renewables/action_plan_en.htm〉; 2010 [accessed 15.11.12]. [26] Eurostat, Infrastructure – electricity – annual data. 〈http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=nrg_113a&lang=en〉; 2014 [accessed 18.05.14]. [27] Elering. Taastuvenergia moodustas mullu 12,6 protsenti elektri kogutarbimisest [Renewable energy accounted for 12.6 percent of total electricity consumption in the last year]. 〈http://elering.ee/taastuvenergia-moodustasmullu-126-protsenti-elektri-kogutarbimisest/〉; 2014 [accessed 24.07.14]. [28] Elering. Eesti Elektrisüsteemi Varustuskindluse Aruanne 2014 [Estonian Power System Supply Report 2014]. 〈www.elering.ee/public/Infokeskus/ Aruanded/Elering_varustuskindluse_aruanne_2014_1.pdf〉; 2014. [29] Ministry of Economy of the Republic of Latvia, Latvijas Enerģētikas ilgtermiņa stratēģija 2030 – konkurētspējīga enerģētika sabiedrībai [Latvian long-term energy strategy for 2030 – a competitive energy system]. 〈http://www.em.gov. lv/em/2nd/?cat=30168〉; 2012 [accessed 15.01.13]. [30] Government of Finland, Laki uusiutuvilla energialähteillä tuotetun sähkön tuotantotuesta [Act on production support for electricity produced with renewable sources]. 〈http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2010/20101396〉; 2010 [accessed 30.08.14]. [31] Tuuleenergia [Estonia Wind Energy Association]. Wind power installed capacity. 〈http://www.tuuleenergia.ee/en/windpower-101/statistics-of-esto nia/installed-capacity/〉; 2014. [32] Tuuleenergia [Estonia Wind Energy Association]. Wind power under development. 〈http://www.tuuleenergia.ee/en/windpower-101/statistics-of-esto nia/under-development/〉; 2014. [33] European Commission. Eurobarometer – Energy Technologies: Knowledge, Perception, Measures. 〈http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_ 262_en.pdf〉; 2007. [34] Tuuleenergia [Estonia Wind Energy Association]. ETV saate Foorum küsitlus: 58,5% ütles “jah” tuuleenergia osakaalu tõstmisele [ETV Forum Poll: 58.5% said “yes ” to raising the share of wind power]. 〈http://www.tuuleenergia.ee/2013/ 02/etv-saate-foorum-kusitlus-585-utles-jah-tuuleenergia-osakaalu-tostmi sele/〉; 2013. [35] Tuuleenergia (Estonia Wind Energy Association), Hanila valla elanikud on tuuleparkide arendajailt saanud ligi kolme aastaga 83 000 eurot [Hanila town residents have received €83,000 over 3 years from wind farm developers]. 〈http://www.tuuleenergia.ee/2013/12/13653/〉; 2013 [accessed 25.08.14]. [36] Tuuleenergia [Estonia Wind Energy Association]. Noarootsi tuuleparkide rahale laekus taotlusi 18 000 euro eest [Noarootsi windfarm donates 18,000 euros]. 〈http://www.tuuleenergia.ee/2014/04/noarootsi-tuuleparkide-rahalelaekus-taotlusi-18-000-euro-eest/〉; 2014. [accessed 25.08.14]. [37] Svensk författningssamling. Förordning om stöd till planeringsinsatser för vindkraft [Regulation on support to planning initiatives for wind power]. 〈http://www.lagboken.se/Views/Pages/GetFile.ashx?porta lId=56&cat=27541&docId=122823&propId=5〉; 2007 [accessed 10.09.14]. [38] Swedish Energy Agency. Vindlov [Windpower planning information website]. 〈http://www.vindlov.se/〉; 2014 [accessed 10.09.14]. [39] Svensk författningssamling, Miljöbalk [Environmental Code]. 〈rkrattsdb.gov. se/SFSdoc/98/980808.PDF〉; 1998 [accessed 22.09.14]. [40] Svensk författningssamling, Plan- och bygglag. 〈http://www.lagboken.se/ Views/Pages/GetFile.ashx?porta lId=56&cat=60925&docId=639457&propId=5〉; n.d. [accessed 20.09.14]. [41] Svensk Vindenergi [Swedish Wind Energy Association]. Vindkraftstatistik och prognos Kvartal 2 2014 [Wind power statistics and plans quarter 2 2014]. 〈http://www.vindkraftsbranschen.se/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Statistikvindkraft-kvartal-2-2014.pdf〉; 2014 [accessed 30.0914]. [42] Bobinaite V. Financial sustainability of wind electricity sectors in the Baltic States. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;47:794–815. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.rser.2015.03.088. [43] Salo O, Syri S. What economic support is needed for Arctic offshore wind power? Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;31:343–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.rser.2013.11.051. [44] Government of Finland. National Energy and Climate Strategy – Government Report to Parliament on 20March 2013. 〈http://www.tem.fi/files/36292/Ener gia-_ja_ilmastostrategia_nettijulkaisu_ENGLANNINKIELINEN.pdf〉;2013 [accessed 26.05.14]. [45] Cross Sam, MikkoW, Syri S. EU-level scenarios for primary biomass demand to 2020 & 2030; 2014. [46] Eurostat. Municipal waste generation and treatment, by type of treatment method. 〈http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table &init=1&language=en&pcode=tsdpc240&plugin=1〉; 2014 [accessed 15.09.14].