EU Scenarios for a Sustainable RES Strategy - The Sustainability of Renewable Energy in Europe - page 125

Table 5.3 Estimated penalty of limited participation in EU climate change policy in 2020 and
2030. (Source: Bollino and Micheli ( 2014 ); Eurostat ( 2014 ))

Nonparticipating country Penalty 2020 Penalty 2030

(ENESH scenario)

Penalty 2030 with tech
change (RESSH scenario)

Austria 1.74 1.73 1.69

Belgium 3.85 3.83 3.75

Bulgaria 0.44 0.44 0.46

Cyprus 0.12 0.12 0.12

Czech Republic 1.11 1.10 1.06

Denmark 3.07 3.06 3.07

Estonia 0.28 0.27 0.29

Finland 4.04 4.02 3.80

France 12.21 12.15 12.70

Germany 29.47 28.98 30.55

Greece 2.50 2.48 2.71

Hungary 0.84 0.84 0.80

Ireland 3.18 3.18 3.38

Italy 6.73 6.65 6.68

Latvia 0.27 0.26 0.26

Lithuania 0.35 0.35 0.35

Luxembourg 0.08 0.08 0.08

Malta 0.06 0.05 0.06

The Netherlands 7.48 7.46 7.61

Poland 4.55 4.54 4.50

Portugal 2.72 2.71 2.84

Romania 1.56 1.56 1.62

Slovakia 0.29 0.29 0.28

Slovenia 0.11 0.11 0.10

Spain 14.74 16.64 15.78

Sweden 6.08 6.05 5.80

The UK 19.45 19.39 19.86

because there are increasing marginal costs for the remaining countries which yields
a more than proportionate increase in their burden (Table 5.3 )
Given RES quotas established by the 2020 climate and energy package in rela-
tion to the RES directive ( 2009 /28/EC), we estimate the minimum costs to reach
the overall target of RES quantity, given their relative price (LCOE) of production.
In particular, we calculate that the cost falls on the community if some countries
do not participate in the achievement of fulfilling the quota imposed by the RES
directive 2009 /28/EC (European Commission 2009 ). Incomplete participation rais-
es abatement costs for remaining countries by a penalty factor which depends on
the convexity of the abatement's marginal cost. Consequences of defection by EU