515 Million July Deficit on Renewable Surcharge Account Further Reduces Positive Balance

An EEG account deficit of EUR 515,116,324.11 in July lead to another reduction of the positive balance on the Renewable Surcharge Account (EEG account) to EUR 1,063,327,552.78 at the end of July, the four German transmission system operators (TSOs) informed. Compared with the status at end of July 2013, costs for the transfer payment system to renewable power plant operators were about 12% higher.

5,207 GWh renewable power were fed into the grids and had to be sold by the TSOs at the EPEX Spot power exchange, less than a year before (July 2013: 6,973 GWh) and less than in June 2014 (5,776 GWh). Solar input marketed by the TSOs was the highest with 3,813 GWh, down from 4,276 GWh in June 2014 (July 2013: 4,817 GWh). Wind power input sold by the TSOs decreased to 304 GWh (June 2014: 316 GWh; July 2013: 276 GWh). Input from biomass was down to 860 GWh after 969 GWh in June (July 2013: 1,575). The first seven months of 2014 saw total renewable input marketed by the TSOs of 34,351 GWh, compared to 36,606 GWh in 2013.

The average price obtained by the TSOs at the power exchange in July 2014 went up to EUR 34.47/MWh from 32.54/MWh in June. In June 2013 the average price was EUR 38.58/MWh.

So far EEG costs in the EEG surcharge account add up to EUR 13,261,199,259.96 by end of July 2014. Compared with costs of EUR 11,819,208,279.79 at the same time in 2013, this means that costs have risen by about 12.2%. In the last two months the 2014 end of month costs status was plus 18% respectively 25%.

The coming months – with its weather and the effects of the EEG 2.0 – will show whether or to what extent the positive balance of currently EUR 1,063,327,552.78 will turn out to sufficiently contribute to cover costs and to maintain the intended liquidity reserve of EUR 1.9 billion.

To recall: this year’s EEG surcharge of 6.24 ct/kWh is composed of 5.146 ct/kWh of core EEG surcharge (used for the actual transfer payments), 0.512 ct/kWh to build the 10% liquidity reserve (Section 3(7) AusglMechV) and 0.581 ct/kWh of deficit cover based on the (debt) status of the EEG account as of 30 September 2013 (as the EEG surcharge in previous years did not cover the EEG spending).  Therefore, if the estimated EEG transfer payments for 2015 would remain stable, the EEG surcharge payment would – for purely technical reasons of calculating the EEG surcharge – have to be reduced from 6.24 ct/kWh to 5.146 ct/kWh (assuming no further back payments and no increase in liquidity reserve), as this is the amount of the core EEG surcharge that actually covers the EEG transfer payments. If the EEG surcharge for 2015 – just to give a number – would come out at 6 ct/kWh, this would look like a reduction at first sight, but in reality would indicate an increase in the underlying core EEG surcharge of over 15%.

Under the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) renewable power input into the German grids is supported by transfer payments such as feed-in tariffs or direct marketing premiums paid in addition to the revenue obtained by the sale of renewable energy that is effected by renewable power plant operator themselves. The so-called EEG account balances the expenses for renewable transfer payments to renewable power plant operators against the revenue obtained from the sale of the renewable energy at the EPEX Spot power exchange by the TSOs and the so-called EEG surcharge, which electricity consumers have to pay in support of the EEG transfer payments.

Source: www.netztransparenz.de

Related posts:

Print This Post Print This Post

4 Responses to “515 Million July Deficit on Renewable Surcharge Account Further Reduces Positive Balance”


  • RE marketed: 34,351 GWh
    Cost: euro 13,261,199,259.96
    Cost: 386.05 euro MWh
    Average Sell Price first six months: 32.75 euro/MWh
    Cost/Average Sell Price: 11.8.

    The unit cost of generating the energy is 11.8 times the wholesale unit price obtained!!!

    Looks like ENERGIEWENDE is a great program that may in short order bankrupt Germany.

  • Mutthias Leng

    I think looking at it this way puts the total costs (for feed-in tariffs and market premiums) in relation only to the feed-in tariff quantity, thereby coming up with a figure that is too high.

    I do not have the generation figures for renewables generation in July sold through direct marketing (sure it is available somewhere), but here are the figures (in MW) for capacity in direct marketing just to give a feeling for the volume:


     

    Hydo Gas Biomass Geothermal Wind onshore Wind Offshore Solar Total
    Jan 14 515.96 181.39 2988.98 4.8 27371.34 562.3 4375.82 36001
    Feb 14 519.47 171.56 3079.41 4.8 27741.57 502.9 4551.87 36572
    Mrz 14 531.07 169.46 3175.03 11.12 28240.78 508.3 4796.03 37432
    Apr 14 534.13 207.3 3449.79 11.12 28606.99 510.3 4908.53 38228
    May 14 539.15 262.27 3705.31 14.12 28986.35 508.3 5014.31 39030
    Jun 14 543.13 268.09 3933.03 14.12 29221.14 621.7 5190.58 39792
    Jul 14 579.34 267.6 4130 11.12 29754.04 621.7 5374.83 40739
    Aug 14 686.01 288.84 4269.17 11.12 30204.91 621.7 5488.07 41570

     
    http://www.netztransparenz.de

     

Comments are currently closed.