Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 310–322

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Econometric modeling of CO2 emissions abatement: Comparing alternative T

approaches
⁎
Tiago Oliveira , Celeste Varum, Anabela Botelho
GOVCOPP and DEGEIT, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: As investments and policies that promote renewable energy (RE) projects in electricity systems are most often
Greenhouse gases grounded on the goal of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, and actual investment and policy decisions are
CO2 abatement shaped by the estimates of the accrued emissions savings, it is crucial that these estimates are as accurate as
Wind generation possible. In this paper we compare different econometric models that estimate the amount of carbon abated due
Solar generation
to RE in terms of their results and their inherent methodological benefits and drawbacks. Specifically, we use the
Electricity markets
British, French and Spanish grids as case studies for the application of a selection of econometric models and
compare the resulting CO2 abatement estimates. We find that, across the three markets, estimates can vary
substantially across the different models – this can lead to an over or underestimation of the emissions abated by
RE. Overall, our results highlight the need for choosing econometric specifications that lead to results that are
congruent with the operational framework of the examined power systems.

1. Introduction
The continued and sustained drive to reduce emissions of
Greenhouse Gases (GHG) in order to mitigate climate change leads ef-
forts to decarbonise electricity systems. Taking the example of the UK,
the Government has set ambitious targets to reduce the average emis-
sions from power generation to around 0.05 tonnes of CO2 per MWh
generated by 2030 [1]. At the same time, it is expected that the heating
and transportation sectors become more integrated with the electricity
sector (e.g., through high penetration of heat pumps and electric ve-
hicles) which would imply increases in demand for electricity as it re-
places current fossil fuel consumption in those sectors.
This context and future perspectives for the decarbonization of the
electricity sector to meet national emissions targets have led to a sub-
stantial increase in investments in low-carbon energy sources. Such
investments are very capital intensive and remain expensive relatively
to traditional fossil fuel based energy, and in the face of resource con-
straints (including financial) there is some controversy surrounding
large investments in renewable energy (RE) in terms of whether the
beneficial environmental impact compensates for the high costs. Thus,
for policy makers, investors and the general public to be better in-
formed it is necessary to address these controversies and provide fur-
ther information on the environmental benefits of such investments. In
order to properly allocate both public and private resources (such as
funds, effort, and political capital) between different alternative in-
vestments it is crucial that the associated environmental externalities be
properly evaluated. This, in turn, requires accurate measurements of
emissions savings which signal which investments are the most efficient
or effective for climate change mitigation.
The typically used metric to account for emissions savings of a
project is the grid's average carbon intensity. However, this metric as-
sumes that an equal proportion of output from each existing generation
technology is offset by RE generation while in practice it is the tech-
nologies that are on the margin that respond. Thus, quantifying re-
ductions in emissions is not an easy task as interventions act on the
margin of the electricity system, instead of having an equal effect on all
generators – this makes the magnitude of carbon abated by different RE
generation technologies depend on how the rest of the system responds
to their temporal pattern of generation output. Consequently, in order
to accurately attribute reductions in emissions to specific RE technol-
ogies, the corresponding marginal emissions factor must be estimated.
Even though this fact is increasingly acknowledged in the literature,
with many articles examining marginal emissions factors, the fact is
that the particular specifications chosen (and implied assumptions) can
make results vary substantially which may lead to inaccurate assess-
ments.
The existing literature on this topic encompasses several papers that
estimate the marginal emissions saved by interventions on the demand

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: oliveiratfm@gmail.com (T. Oliveira).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.02.001
Received 14 May 2018; Received in revised form 31 January 2019; Accepted 2 February 2019
1364-0321/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T. Oliveira, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 310–322

side – such as energy efficiency (EE) solutions involving reductions in reviews the existing related literature. In Section 3 we characterize the
electricity load – and the supply side – such as wind and solar gen- models on which we focus our analysis. Section 4 describes the data and
eration – in several markets using various methods, from power system the markets used in this paper, while Section 5 compares the results of
optimization models to empirical methods which use historical data. using the proposed specifications in the context of the British, French
We focus on the latter, and more specifically on the use of econometric and Spanish markets. Section 6 concludes our work.
models as these constitute a methodology that provides reliable results
while requiring commonly available data on most power systems,
2. Review of the literature
namely technology or aggregate fuel level hourly (or higher frequency)
electricity generation, CO2 factors on technology level, and net imports.
Our paper relates broadly to other papers which show that, overall,
We review thirteen articles which use econometric models to estimate
renewable energy reduces CO2 emissions associated with electricity
marginal emissions factors and verify that the econometric specifica-
generation and that this effect on emissions should be accounted for in
tions used vary widely. The primary motivation for our paper is to show
investment decisions related to renewable energy sources (e.g.,
how different econometric specifications applied to the same data can
[15–22]). The present paper has a more specific aim, focusing on the
produce substantially different results, which could thus lead to dif-
methodologies used for estimating emissions reductions due to elec-
ferent conclusions and possibly policy or investment decisions based on
tricity produced by renewable energy sources.1
inaccurate information. In particular, this paper contributes to the lit-
Methods for quantifying emissions savings due to renewable energy
erature by comparing three models based on those used by published
can be broadly divided into two categories: those based on empirical
articles to estimate the marginal effects of RE generation on CO2
data and simulations primarily based on power system optimization
emissions. We compare these three models in terms of their estimates
models. Power system optimization models establish a representation of
for reductions in CO2 emissions due to increases in wind or solar
the operation of the electricity system by making use of detailed in-
generation using the British, French and Spanish markets as case stu-
formation regarding the system's components and can be categorized
dies.
between unit-commitment and economic-dispatch models, as well as
The three econometric specifications we compare employ an iden-
capacity planning models, although we should note that more complex
tification strategy relying on high frequency data (at least hourly data
models overlap some or all three categories. The first two types of
points) exploiting the exogeneity in the short-run of demand for elec-
models project the expected (optimal) operations of electricity gen-
tricity – assuming demand response is non-substantial – and of non-
erators given the grid's infrastructure, operational physical and eco-
dispatchable renewable generation, i.e., variation in hourly wind or
nomical constraints and market conditions, while capacity planning
solar generation depends almost entirely on natural factors (e.g., wind
models are more forward looking by determining optimal investments
speed and direction; solar irradiance) and the exceptions amounts to
in the grid over time both in terms of investments and divestments in
curtailment, which is currently limited in most electricity markets.
power plants, as well as in transmission capacity.
In our comparison we apply the three distinct econometric specifi-
Power system optimization models present the benefit of offering
cations to estimate the marginal abatement of CO2 emissions by re-
simulations which allow to predict the effect of RE generation on the
newable electricity in three different markets. Our main results suggest
system, including on emissions of GHGs, under conditions different
that controlling for time fixed effects to account for correlation patterns
from those historically present in the market using, for example, sce-
between emissions, demand, wind and solar generation may present
nario based analysis. However, the complexity associated with power
advantages in the identification of the effects of RE generation on
system optimization models is much higher when compared with em-
emissions. As electricity demand and wind and solar generation tend to
pirical models due to the requirements of numerous inputs that are
depend heavily on weather conditions, which have a strong time of day
grid-specific which often represents a significant hurdle as they may be
and seasonality component, time fixed effects may capture trends in
difficult to obtain. These data include detailed data on individual power
these variables that may be correlated and dependent on the hour of the
plants such as fuel, unit efficiency factors (mainly for economic-dis-
day, season of the year, while varying across years. Further, hourly
patch models) as well as data on physical constraints such as ramp rates
fixed effects that can vary across time together with day-of-sample fixed
and unit-specific flexibility (mainly for unit-commitment models), the
effects may proxy for operational and market constraints that are not
market structure, the system's infrastructure, as well as transmission
otherwise accounted for. As a simplified illustrative example, solar PV
and distribution data. Examples of papers that use power system opti-
generates disproportionately more energy during the day when demand
mization models to quantify emissions savings in power systems due to
is higher and is thus likely to displace gas-based generation, while wind
renewable energy are Gutirrez-Martn et al. [23], Weigt et al. [24] and
generation may have higher output at night thus being more likely to
Clancy et al. [25] who, respectively, examine the Spanish, German and
displace coal based generation which is more carbon intensive.
Irish markets, while Van den Bergh et al. [26] address the case of
The accuracy of estimates of the reduction in the amount of CO2
several European power systems and Hitaj [27] performs a simulation
emissions due to RE generation in electricity systems is of great im-
of hypothetical markets based on US data. For a more detailed review
portance, as such estimates signal which investments are the most ef-
on these types of models we refer the reader to Holttinen et al. [28] and
ficient or effective for climate change mitigation. Such estimates are
Ryan et al. [29].
widely used by government departments, for example for carbon ac-
The high level of detailed data requirements for power system op-
counting and GHG reporting by the British Government and for
timization models, together with their increased complexity (which is
Renewable Energy Certificates in the US, and for carbon payback and
also reflected in greater use of computational resources) may represent
net emissions reduction calculations by RE developers, planners and
a barrier to the use of such models in comparison to empirical models
policymakers. Such estimates are used for assessing the carbon impact
which merely require historical hourly (or higher frequency) demand
of RE and EE investments as well as policies that support them (e.g.,
and generation profiles aggregated by technology and the corre-
[2–11,1,12–14]). Therefore, when estimating marginal emission factors
sponding emissions factors. Another significant drawback associated
it is crucial to choose a specification which gives results that align with
with power system optimization models is that their results are heavily
the operational practices of power systems, which makes the resulting
dependent on the input data and the explicit and implicit assumptions
estimates more likely to be accurate and reliable and consequent in-
vestment or policy making decisions more efficient. Inaccurate carbon
accounting is likely to lead to higher carbon emissions at a higher social 1
In order to find relevant studies we relied on Scopus and Google Scholar,
cost. and used the keywords: “marginal emissions factors”, “emissions savings”,
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 “CO2 savings”, “emissions displacement”.

311
T. Oliveira, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 310–322

made in the model. This contrasts with the advantage provided by using Table 1
empirical models based on historical data, as historical relationships Overview of the literature that uses econometric models to estimate marginal
between generation and load as well as other complexities of the grid emission factors of power systems.
which can be difficult to explicitly model in power system optimization Reference Region Period Model
models (e.g., electricity trading, transmission constraints, generators’
costs as well as operational limitations and characteristics such as start- Hawkes [3] Great Britain 2002–09 First-Differences (TG)
Siler-Evans et al. [36] US (multiple) 2006–11 First-Differences (FG)
up costs and minimum up and downtime) are implicitly accounted for
Cullen [2] ERCOT 2005–07 Dynamic model
as a reflection of the historical operation of the grid.2 However, this Kaffine et al. [4] ERCOT 2007–09 Fixed Effects
advantage of empirical models comes with the drawback that the re- Wheatley [5] Ireland (ROI) 2011 First-Differences (D,
sults are less useful for decisions that involve scenarios where the grid W);
ARMA (1,1); Net Imp.
operations greatly differ from the past. As empirical models are based
Amor et al. [6] Ontario 2006–11 Fixed Effects
on historical data, by their very nature they are not designed to respond Zivin et al. [37] US (multiple) 2007–09 Fixed Effects
to structural changes in the electricity grid (e.g., large scale generation Novan [7] ERCOT 2007–11 Fixed Effects
or transmission capacity additions). Di Cosmo and Valeri Ireland (All- 2008–12 Fixed Effects + AR(1);
Empirical data methods broadly consist of three subcategories. First, [10] Island) Net Imp.
Li et al. [11] MISO 2014 First-Differences (TG)
historical data on emissions and generation or load can be used to
Staffell [1] Great Britain 2009–12 First-Differences (D, W)
calculate average emissions factors as in, e.g., Holdway et al. [30] and 2013–16 First-Differences (D, W,
Colett et al. [31]. Second, these data can be used by models that predict S)
the marginal generator on a probability assessment basis or other sta- Thomson et al. [13] Great Britain 2009–14 First-Differences (TG,
W)
tistical models as in Jansen et al. [32], Moreau et al. [33] and Arch-
Thind et al. [12] MISO 2007–16 First-Differences (TG)
smith et al. [34].3 And finally, the mentioned data can be used in
econometric models (mainly based on regression analysis) which is the Notes:
focus of our paper. 1) D, W, S - Demand, Wind and Solar generation, respectively.
To the best of our knowledge only one article, Ryan et al. [29], 2) Net Imp. - the model includes net imports of electricity (imports-exports) as a
performs a comparison between different methods and models for regressor.
quantifying changes in emissions due to changes in electricity load. 3) FG and TG - aggregate Fossil-fuel based and Total Generation, respectively.
These authors first identify and review 32 methods and models and 4) First-Differences (X1 , …, Xi ) - the model includes the variables ΔXi as re-
then compare a subset of these using a case study based on electric gressors.
5) For a given variable X. ΔXt = Xt − Xt − 1
vehicles (EV) and show that the resulting estimates of avoided emis-
sions vary widely depending on the method used. The subset of models
included in the comparative analysis includes average emission factors almost entirely on weather conditions with curtailment being limited.
(as in, e.g., Holdway et al. [30], Colett et al. [31]), marginal emission As electricity demand and wind and solar generation do depend heavily
factors provided by a unit-commitment and economic dispatch model on weather conditions – which have a strong time of day and season-
ality component - the inclusion of time fixed effects may present ad-
(PLEXOS) and one model based on statistical relationships (AVoided
Emissions and geneRation Tool - AVERT).4 Thus, although the authors vantages in the identification of the effects of RE generation on emis-
sions by controlling for underlying factors that are correlated with these
include methods based on econometric models in their review of the
literature they do not include them in the comparative analysis. variables (e.g., temperature).
Two other articles in Table 1 focus on capturing the effects on
We present in Table 1 an overview of the literature that makes use
of econometric models to estimate marginal emissions factors in power emissions from changes in electricity load, namely Hawkes [3] who
aims to estimate the effects on CO2 emissions of demand-side inter-
systems either due to renewable electricity generation or changes in
electricity load. ventions, and Zivin et al. [37] who estimate hourly marginal emission
factors to estimate the environmental benefits of charging electric ve-
As Table 1 shows, the British and ERCOT electricity systems are the
most studied followed by the Irish and the MISO systems - out of the hicles in different time windows. Finally, Siler-Evans et al. [36], Li et al.
[11], Thind et al. [12] and Thomson et al. [13] use linear regressions of
thirteen papers included in the table, only three correspond to other
electricity systems. Most of the articles included in Table 1 focus on the emissions on aggregate fossil-fuel based and total generation in order to
estimate a system wide marginal emission factor. These estimates may
effects of renewable generation on emissions, with Cullen [2], Kaffine
et al. [4], Wheatley [5], Amor et al. [6] and Di Cosmo and Valeri [10] then serve as an approximation to the effects of supply side interven-
tions in the system (such as further investments in RE generation) or
focusing on wind power exclusively while Novan [7] and Staffell [1]
account also for solar generation. demand side interventions (such as EE measures) - as used for example
by Siler-Evans et al. [36], who compare the effects on emissions of EE
These papers rely on an identification strategy that exploits the
exogeneity of short-run electricity demand and non-dispatchable re- improvements in interior lighting (e.g., in offices) and in exterior
lighting by exploiting the heterogeneity of the hourly estimates of the
newable generation, implicitly assuming that demand response is non-
substantial and that variation in wind or solar generation depends marginal emission factors.
We also observe that there is a wide variety in the types of models
employed in the analyses, with seven papers relying on linear regres-
2
Furthermore, dispatch models are based on a merit-order or least-cost op- sion models based on first-differencing the data while five use linear
timization which may not accurately model dispatching decisions of private regressions with data in levels and include time-fixed effects as re-
firms operating in liberalized electricity markets. The use of empirical gen- gressors. First difference models essentially estimate the change in
eration data overcomes this issue. Moreover, some of the most widely used emissions between one period (usually an hour) and the previous one
models of this type (e.g., PLEXOS) are proprietary. (ΔCO2t = CO2t − CO2t − 1) as a function of the analogous change in the
3
As these methods lie outside the scope of our paper, for more information on explanatory variable(s) (ΔXi ) included in the particular model. The
them we refer the reader to Ryan et al. [29]. reviewed articles that use data in levels and rely on Fixed Effects models
4
The AVERT model uses statistical relationships present in historical data on do so with the reasoning of capturing trends in wind generation, de-
unit-level generation and load, by calculating the operational probability
mand and emissions that may be correlated and dependent on the hour
(based on a Monte Carlo method) of each unit's operation which is then used to
of the day, the day itself (in particular weekdays against weekends),
determine the fossil fuel based generation units that are likely to be offset by
additional renewable energy or demand reductions EPA [35].
month and years. For example, in the case of electricity demand there

312
T. Oliveira, et al.
are clear patterns that emerge which depend on each of the mentioned
timeframes, as well as on the season of the year.
Some articles, namely Wheatley [5] and Di Cosmo and Valeri [10],
attempt to correct for serial correlation in the data by including auto-
regressive processes as regressors in their models, while the other ar-
ticles instead account for serial correlation by reporting Newey-West
standard errors. These two articles also differ in that they include net
imports of electricity as an explanatory variable in the analysis, unlike
the other reviewed articles.
Our paper aims to compare models that can be used with data of
hourly or higher frequency that is commonly available for most power
systems, specifically technology or fuel level electricity generation, CO2
factors on technology level, and net imports of electricity.5 Based on
this condition, we compare three different econometric models which
are based on the specifications used in some of the articles presented in
Table 1 that align with the characteristics described above. We note
that there are other articles that perform similar econometric analyses
but which we choose to exclude from our comparison – e.g., Zivin et al.
[37] who regress hourly emissions on hourly demand controlling for
hour-month-year fixed effects. Applying a similar model while con-
trolling for hourly wind and solar generation would result in a model
similar to the specification used in Kaffine et al. [4].
Besides the modeling differences mentioned above and in Table 1,
some models present quite unique approaches which we deem less re-
levant with respect to the other reviewed articles and for this reason are
not included in our comparison. With respect specifically to the British
system, Thomson et al. [13] use a similar specification as Hawkes [3]
except that, besides modeling hourly CO2 emissions as a function of
total generation, the authors include also the first differences in wind
generation as an explanatory variable. As total generation includes
exported electricity, which can be affected by wind generation, the
estimates on the effect of wind on emissions may be biased. With re-
spect to the ERCOT, Cullen [2] concentrates on the dynamic effects of
wind generation on the generating firms' operational and bidding de-
cisions using a more complex dynamic model which makes use of in-
dividual generator data, unlike the remaining articles. The model used
by Amor et al. [6] also presents some differences with respect to the
remaining articles as these authors focus on the impact of network
constraints on emissions.
Furthermore, we exclude other articles from our comparison on
methodological grounds. Specifically, Wheatley [5] and Di Cosmo and
Valeri [10] include net imports as an explanatory variable in their
econometric specifications, but this approach implicitly assumes that a
change by 1 MWh in demand or wind or solar generation results in a
corresponding compensation from domestic generation exclusively.
This is not what happens in reality, as we show below in our analysis
that net imports respond to changes in demand, solar and wind gen-
eration. This leads us to exclude these specifications from our com-
parison. Further, we also exclude from our comparison Hawkes [3],
Siler-Evans et al. [36] and Thind et al. [12] as these authors focus on EE
interventions, and as the models used are conceptually different – ra-
ther than estimating the marginal emissions factor of a specific variable
(demand, wind or solar generation), they estimate changes in CO2 as a
function of changes in aggregate fossil fuel based generation or total
generation.
3. Characterization of the compared models
In this section we characterize the five models that we compare in
Table 2. We note that as the power systems we examine (British, French
and Spanish) have a high degree of solar generation penetration than
some of those examined in the articles presented in Table 1, we include
5
We also use demand data, however demand can be derived from total
system generation and net imports.
313
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 310–322
this variable in every specification while the models in the papers on
which they are based do not with the exception of Staffell [1]. Fur-
thermore, while Kaffine et al. [4] and Novan [7] examine the response
of emissions other than CO2, such as NOx, and SO2, we concentrate on
CO2 as we are focused not on air quality but on climate change impacts
of RE investments in electricity systems. We compare the following
econometric specifications:
As shown in Table 2, each of the three specifications we compare is
based on an existing article and broadly corresponds to the specification
used in it except for the addition of the solar generation variable and in
some cases on the exclusion of regression terms that are not pertinent to
our analysis. Similarly, Novan [7] includes squared and cubed demand
terms in his model which we exclude as we found the addition of these
variables not substantially affecting results. In the case of Staffell [1],
our corresponding specification M1is similar to the original one.
As Table 2 indicates, Model 1is based on first differencing, meaning
that the difference in emissions between a given period t (an half-hour
or an hour depending on the dataset) and the previous one
(ΔCO2t = CO2t − CO2t − 1) is modeled as a function of the difference in
the explanatory variable(s) (ΔXi ) included in that particular model. In
the case of M1 the explanatory variables are demand, wind and solar
generation.
Models 2 and 3 model CO2 emissions as a function of demand for
electricity, wind and solar generation and differ from the remaining
specifications first by considering data in levels, instead of first differ-
ences, and second by controlling for time fixed effects to account for
correlation patterns between emissions, demand, wind and solar gen-
eration. The reasoning for the inclusion of time fixed effects is to cap-
ture trends in wind and solar generation, as well as demand and
emissions that may be correlated and dependent on the hour of the day,
months and years, or even the day itself as these variables tend to de-
pend heavily on weather conditions which have a strong time of day
and seasonality component. Furthermore, these models differ from the
others by accounting for serial correlation, reporting Newey West
standard errors.
More specifically, Model 2 controls for possible trends in demand,
wind and solar PV generation associated with the hour of the day and
the month in the sample, which consequently addresses daily trends in
demand and renewable generation as well as seasonality issues.
However, as Novan [7] argues, if daily demand, wind and solar gen-
eration patterns do not simply shift across seasons but, instead, the
shape of the daily demand and generation profiles change substantially,
this approach may not be sufficient to control for this variation. Thus, in
Model 3, based on Novan [7], the set of hourly fixed effects is allowed
to vary across each month in the sample, as well as by day of the week,
which we represent as αh, m, y, dow . Furthermore, this specification goes
beyond time of day and seasonal trends by controlling for other factors
that can affect emissions for several hours during a day, such as outages
of conventional generation plants, changes in fuel and CO2 prices, as
well as effects from forward contract positions of electricity generators,
through the inclusion of fixed effects corresponding to each day in the
sample δd .
The employed identification strategies exploit the fact that both
demand for electricity and non-dispatchable renewable generation are
exogenous in the short-run. For example, variation in hourly wind or
solar generation is determined almost entirely by exogenous natural
factors (e.g., wind speed, wind direction, solar irradiance) - the ex-
ceptions to this are rare and amount to intentional curtailment, which is
currently quite limited in most electricity markets. With respect to
demand for electricity, its exogeneity in the short-term relies on the
degree of short-term demand response being non-substantial, a cir-
cumstance which may also change in the future.
Before exploring the results of our analyses, we point out some
possible flaws in terms of methodology of some of the compared
models. In the British case, the paper that examines it Staffell [1]relies
on first differencing, a methodology commonly used to address issues
T. Oliveira, et al.
Table 2
Specifications compared in this paper matched with the corresponding paper(s) on which they are based.
Specification
M1: ΔCO2t = β1 ΔDt + β2 ΔWt + β3 ΔSt + εt
M2: CO2t = β1 Dt + β2 Wt + β3 St + αh + δm, y + εt
M3: CO2t = β1 Dt + β2 Wt + β3 St + αh, m, y, dow + δd + εt
Notes:
1) For a given variable X. ΔXt = Xt − Xt − 1
2) D, W, S - Demand, Wind and Solar generation, respectively.
3) α and δ - fixed effects (dummies) with the subscripts corresponding to hours (h), months (m), years (y).
day-of-week (dow) and day-of-sample (d).
related to non-stationarity of the series used in an econometric model.
According to the data we were able to obtain for the British grid, we
argue that first differencing is not appropriate in the British case for the
2013–16 period (which is examined by Staffell [1]) as we found no unit
roots in the series included in the model (i.e., there is no evidence that
the series are non-stationary). Furthermore, first differencing may likely
not be appropriate even in general, as we found no unit roots in the
series used in the case of the French and Spanish grids. Despite the
British market being the most studied European market, the models
used in the existing literature may not produce reliable results as dis-
cussed above, with Hawkes [3], Staffell [1] and Thomson et al. [13] all
relying on first differencing.6
The following section describes the markets and the datasets used to
conduct the comparisons across the different specifications. In Section 5
we compare these three specifications for the estimation of the effect of
changes in demand, wind and solar generation on CO2 emissions in the
British, French and Spanish markets. We present results for different
markets in order to show how the models compare in structurally dif-
ferent electricity systems.
4. Data and markets description
This section addresses data description and the selection of the
markets used to conduct the comparisons between different specifica-
tions. We compare the mainland British, French and Spanish grids due
to the structural differences across them. In the Appendix, in Table A1,
we provide statistics that reflect some structural differences between
these markets. In particular, the generation mix of the three countries is
significantly different. France has a very high share of nuclear gen-
eration, amounting to over 75% of total generation over our sample
period, over 3 times larger relative to Britain and Spain. Together with
a very low share of coal and gas based generation, this leads French
generation to be relatively clean as reflected on its average CO2 in-
tensity (total emissions divided by total load) of 0.037 tonnes per MWh,
compared with the Spanish figure which is over 6 times higher standing
at 0.242 t/MWh and to the British figure which is even larger at
0.350 t/MWh. This occurs despite both Britain and especially Spain
having significantly higher levels of renewable energy penetration.
In Britain almost 14% of total generation is based on renewables
(2.5% corresponding to solar, with the remaining being wind based)
while in Spain wind and solar correspond to nearly 20% and 5% of total
generation, respectively, for a total of approximately 25%. In contrast,
France has a relatively low penetration of both types of generation with
their total aggregate amounting to around 5% of total generation.
Regarding hydro based generation, Britain differs from the other
countries by presenting a reduced penetration (nearly 1.5%) compared
6
Unless there is a clear reason for differencing stationary time series, some
authors argue that these should not be differenced as doing so may produce
undesirable results (e.g., Chang and Dickey [38]; Cochrane [39]).
314
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 310–322
Based on Fixed effects
Staffell [1] None
Kaffine et al. [4] Hourly and
month-year
Novan [7] Hour-month-year-dow
and day-of-sample
with both Spain and France where it reaches around 11% of total
generation. Furthermore, France exports a large proportion of its total
generation (more than 10%) while both Britain and Spain are net im-
porters of electricity, with net imports corresponding to 6% and 1.5% of
their domestic generation respectively.
For the British market we obtained data for the period between
January 2013 and December 2017 while for the French and Spanish
markets our analysis covers the period starting in January 2013 and
January 2014, respectively for each market, until October 2017.
We obtained data on the British grid from the same data sources as
Staffell [1] (the National Grid and Elexon websites), and use a similar
dataset construction and data treatment as this author.7 Our dataset is
composed of half-hourly data on electricity generation decomposed by
technology (CCGT, coal, hydro, nuclear, net pumped storage genera-
tion, wind and solar PV as well as a category for other types of gen-
eration where we aggregate the remaining generation types that are less
represented in overall generation8), demand and net imports which are
defined as imports minus exports of electricity. These data are available
from the National Grid [40] (demand data, electricity trade as well as
embedded solar and wind generation) and Elexon [41] (output per
technology) official websites.
As data on actual half-hourly CO2 emissions are not available, we
multiply the electricity generated by a given source in each period by its
carbon intensity using the same emission factors as Staffell [1] (esti-
mated using data from DUKES emissions factors for fuels).9 A similar
procedure is conducted for net imports, using carbon intensities for
electricity imported or exported to the French, Irish and Dutch grids
(estimated using data on electricity generation by technology from
ENTSO-E [42] and EuroStat [43], together with the technology carbon
intensities used for the British grid). In order to have a more concise
presentation we discuss the details regarding our data construction and
treatment, which includes the carbon intensities used for each tech-
nology and interconnected market, in the Appendix.
In the case of the French and Spanish markets our dataset is com-
posed of hourly data on electricity generation, demand and net imports.
We obtained these data from the official websites of the transmission
system operator (TSO) of each market, REE [44] in the case of Spain
and RTE [45] in the case of France. As in the British dataset, we
7
Staffell [1] focuses on the time frame 2009–2016 but accounts for solar
generation in the analysis only between January 2013 – June 2016.
8
This category includes the output of Oil and OCGT facilities given their
relative low generation relative to load.
9
This procedure has the undesirable property of not accounting for the effect
of reduced efficiency of thermal plants under part load, which may affect es-
timates of marginal emissions avoided. However, due to the unavailability of
detailed data (at an hourly or higher frequency level) on CO2 emissions for
these grids, it was necessary to adopt a procedure to construct the emissions
dataset. Further, using average carbon emission factor per technology instead of
heat curves per plant implies that the analysis for generation and emissions is
equivalent – this is also the result of limited access to detailed data.
T. Oliveira, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 310–322

decompose the data on electricity generation by type of generator with Table 3

the addition of the category solar thermal in the case of Spain. Fur- Total CO2 emissions offset per MWh change in RE generation or electricity
thermore, in the category “others” we also group cogeneration with the demand according to each model.
remaining generation types that are less represented in overall gen- Great Britain
eration.10
Data on hourly CO2 emissions are not available for either country so M1 M2 M3
CO2
we calculate them by multiplying the hourly output of each type of
Demand 0.421*** 0.564*** 0.475***
generation as well as electricity imported or exported to each inter- (0.0005) (0.0037) (0.0074)
connected market by the corresponding CO2 emissions factor as in the Wind − 0.416*** − 0.526*** − 0.487***
case of the British dataset. Further details regarding data construction (0.0041) (0.0061) (0.0057)
Solar − 0.432*** − 0.531*** − 0.444***
and treatment, which includes the carbon intensities used, are con-
(0.0029) (0.0092) (0.0078)
tained in the Appendix. The Spanish and French TSO report CO2 R2 0.87 0.88 0.73
emissions on an annual basis. Our calculated emissions aggregated
annually are relatively close to those reported by each TSO, presenting France
an error ranging between 1% and 2%. CO2
Demand 0.117*** 0.209*** 0.177***
(0.0007) (0.0037) (0.0050)
Wind − 0.063*** − 0.273*** − 0.198***
5. Results and discussion
(0.0087) (0.0115) (0.0085)
Solar 0.006 − 0.074*** − 0.069***
This section compares the resulting estimates of the three models we (0.0047) (0.0162) (0.0186)
compare, described in Section 3, applied to the mainland British, R2 0.38 0.622 0.26
French and Spanish grids. Table 3 presents the results of the estimates
Spain
obtained with each of the three econometric specifications we compare CO2
applied to each of the three markets we use as case studies. This table Demand 0.223*** 0.421*** 0.268***
shows that the estimates of the effect of demand, wind and solar gen- (0.0009) (0.0064) (0.0087)
eration vary substantially depending on the specification used, as well Wind − 0.251*** − 0.394*** − 0.263***
(0.0031) (0.0077) (0.0052)
as on the market.11 Comparing the three specifications focusing on each
Solar PV − 0.279*** − 0.327*** − 0.209***
market separately, we observe a wide range of variation of the effects of (0.0041) (0.0307) (0.0209)
each independent variable on CO2 emissions.12 The different results Solar Thermal − 0.182*** − 0.294*** − 0.295***
should relate to differences between the specifications, as we explain (0.0064) (0.0406) (0.0206)
below. R2 0.69 0.78 0.57

Starting by a brief overview of all specifications, regarding Models 1

we performed the Dickey-Fuller and Phillips-Perron tests for unit roots
on all the series and we are able to reject the null hypothesis of the
presence of a unit root at the 1% level of confidence. Further, KPSS
testing leads to the null hypothesis (the series being stationary) failing
to be rejected at the 1% level. Thus, econometric theory does not offer
any plausible reason for first differencing the series. Consequently, this
transformation may remove or alter variation that would be useful for
the identification of the effects of each variable on emissions and thus
10
For Spain, the category “others” comprises cogeneration as well as gen-
eration based on biogas, biomass, geothermal and ocean energy, fuel, fossil oil,
non renewable waste (general waste, household waste and mining sub-
products), as well as the measured Balearic consumption (classified as gen-
eration in REE [44]). In the case of France, “others” comprises cogeneration as
well as generation based on biogas, biomass, bio waste, oil, as well as other
small amounts of generation based on natural gas that is not from CCGT gen-
erators. Furthermore, for both countries, the data on generation and con-
sumption related to pumped storage facilities is provided separately. We ag-
gregate these data to obtain net pumped storage generation. In the case of
hydro generation we aggregate the output from hydro based generators ex-
cluding pumped storage units.
11
Using the same specification as Staffell [1] (Model 1) and restricting our
sample to the time frame January 2013 - June 2016, which is the period for
which Staffell [1] includes solar generation in the analysis, we obtain very si-
milar estimates. The author reports estimates of CO2 abated at 0.440 tCO2/
MWh for demand, and 0.435 for wind and solar output, while we obtain esti-
mates of 0.439 for demand, 0.441 for wind and 0.440 for solar output. We note
that this occurs in spite of our definition of Demand differing substantially.
12
We note that the coefficient on demand could serve as an illustrative ex-
ample of an abstract EE solution that reduces demand for electricity on a uni-
form basis across all temporal dimensions. We abstain from exploring this as-
pect in this paper as in practice EE solutions differ substantially timewise (e.g.,
improvements in lighting efficiency or in heating and cooling electrical appli-
ances), which means that they are most likely to lead to substantially different
estimates of abated CO2 emissions due to temporal heterogeneity in emissions
factors.
Standard errors in parentheses.
* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001.
impact results despite not providing any additional benefit to the ana-
lysis.
Table 3 shows that Model 1 presents estimates that differ sub-
stantially from Models 2 and 3. In particular, the effect of wind and
solar generation on emissions tends to be lower compared with the
estimates obtained with M2 and M3 and, moreover, in the case of
France the effect of solar generation on emissions is close to zero and
not statistically significant. In the case of Spain, Model 1 presents es-
timates that differ less substantially from the other models. Still, there is
an important difference in the fact that the effect of solar thermal
generation on emissions is estimated to be around 53% lower than that
of solar PV while in Model 2 this difference is around 11% and in Model
3 the difference is reversed with solar thermal abating substantially
more emissions than solar PV generation.
If wind or solar-based generation and CO2 emissions follow regular
daily (e.g., day-time and night-time) and seasonal patterns that may be
correlated, it is crucial to control for these patterns as without such
controls the resulting estimates may be biased by spurious correlations
between daily and seasonal patterns in renewable electricity generation
and CO2 emissions. Thus, the differences in estimates derived from
Model 1 may be the result of not controlling for each type of renewable
generation and load patterns (e.g., seasonality) as well as for correla-
tions between each type of renewable generation and load (as well as
the grid's CO2 intensity) associated with the time-of-day and the season
of the year - these patterns can be observed in Figs. A1 to A3 in the
Appendix, which report the intra-daily profiles of load, CO2 intensity
and each type of renewable electricity generation for all markets across
the different seasons of the year.13 As described in Section 3, Model 2
13
We note that we use the term seasonality to refer to any periodic, re-
petitive, and generally regular patterns in the levels of a time series. The reason

315
T. Oliveira, et al.
addresses this issue by controlling for hourly and month-of-sample fixed
effects. Model 3 goes beyond by including hourly fixed effects that are
allowed to vary across each month of the sample as well as across each
day of the week (which may be important due to patterns in electricity
consumption that vary across each day, in particular weekdays against
weekends). As mentioned in Section 3, this specification also includes
day-of-sample fixed effects as, in addition to seasonality within a week
(e.g., weekdays vs weekends), there may be other factors to control for
that can affect emissions for several hours during specific days, such as
outages of conventional generation plants, changes in fuel and CO2
prices, as well as effects from forward contract positions of electricity
generators. For the reasons stated in this paragraph, and supported by
the observations which can be drawn from Figs. A1 to A3 in the Ap-
pendix, we believe that Model 3 may provide a better identification of
the effect of demand, solar and wind generation on CO2 emissions and
use its results as the benchmark for comparison with the other
models.14 Comparing Models 2 and 3 we observe that the estimates for
the effect of electricity demand (D), wind generation (W), and solar
generation (S) on emissions are generally higher in the case of Model 2.
Figs. A1 to A3 in the Appendix plot the average hourly demand,
wind and solar generation as well as the CO2 intensity of each grid per
hour of the sample in each season. Taking a broader perspective these
figures show that there are hourly patterns across the sample that apply
to the three markets in our analysis. In particular, although wind gen-
eration tends to remain relatively stable across the day when compared
to demand and solar generation (except during the summer), there is
positive correlation between demand and solar generation, as both tend
be higher in the middle of the day, while CO2 intensity presents ne-
gative correlation with solar generation. Consequently, accounting for
hourly fixed effects may be necessary to obtain accurate estimates. Figs.
A1 to A3 also show that there are seasonal patterns across the sample
that apply to the three markets. As an example, CO2 intensity, demand
and wind generation tend to be substantially higher in the winter while,
in contrast, during the summer these variables are substantially lower
but solar generation is substantially higher (the exception is Spanish
CO2 intensity during the summer being high, which is related to the
substantially higher cooling related demand for electricity during this
season when compared to both Britain and France). These observations
suggest that accounting for seasonality through (for example) month-
year fixed effects may be necessary for an accurate identification of the
effect of changes in demand, wind or solar generation on emissions.
Furthermore, Figs. A1 to A3 show that across all the seasons,
average wind generation tends to peak in the late afternoon and fall to
its lowest in the morning hours, with the difference between the peak
and through being most pronounced in the summer which is also
characterized by a less steady average generation across the day. We
also observe a substantial seasonal difference in peak demand, in that
average hourly electricity demand tends to have its highest peak in the
middle of the day during summer while during the winter the second
peak, which occurs in the late afternoon or early evening, tends to be
higher than the first. The generation profile of solar generation varies
substantially across seasons, mostly in terms of the hours and level of
generation as expected. While peak solar generation tends to roughly
match peak demand during the spring and summer, this is not the case
during the autumn and winter when the second demand peak during
the late afternoon tends to be higher than the first peak while solar
generation peaks during the midday and reaches very low levels
(footnote continued)
is that there are underlying factors affecting both demand for electricity as well
as solar generation (and, to a lesser degree, wind generation) – such as tem-
perature and length of day – that are correlated with both and which, being
influenced by weather conditions, tend to display slightly repetitive patterns.
14
We must note that a drawback of including a large number of fixed effects
is that the within-group variation may be substantially reduced.
316
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 310–322
approaching the late afternoon hours. Considering these observations,
overall, Figs. A1 to A3 show that the magnitude and shape of the hourly
correlation patterns may depend on the seasons of the year, which
suggests that the coefficient for the hourly fixed effects should be al-
lowed to vary across seasons. On a broader view, these figures suggest
that accounting for temporal patterns that affect demand and genera-
tion through fixed effects may be essential for the identification of the
effects of changes in demand, wind or solar generation on CO2 emis-
sions which would thus be based on within-month variation on an
hourly level.
Using the specification M2 as an example, including only hourly
fixed effects that are constant throughout the seasons and month-year
fixed effects (which act as group dummies) controls for the average
differences across each month in the sample in any observable or un-
observable variable (such as level of rainfall which affects the output of
hydro generators) which consequently greatly reduces the potential for
omitted variable bias.15 However, in practice the observations that can
be drawn from Figs. A1 to A3 affect the ideal econometric specification
by suggesting that instead of including hourly fixed effects that are
constant throughout the seasons and accounting for seasonality with
month-year fixed effects (as in M2), it may be more appropriate to go
beyond this approach and allow the hourly fixed affects to flexibly vary
across each month in the sample, i.e., hour-month-year fixed effects (as
in M3).
In the following tables we examine whether the estimates resulting
from each of the specifications we compare (M1 to M3) are in line with
the operational framework of power systems. Specifically, we regress
hourly net imports and the hourly generation of each type of tech-
nology on the same set of regressors for each specification as detailed in
Table 2.
Tables 4 to 6 to 6 show the estimates according to each specification
of the effect of changes in demand, wind and solar generation on the
output of each type of generator and on net imports. As total system
load equals domestic generation plus net imports, a reduction in de-
mand by 1MWh or an increase in wind or solar generation by the same
amount must correspond to a reduction in the sum of domestic gen-
eration with net imports. We verify that, when compared with Models 1
and 3, this equality is (approximately) verified less often for Model 2.
This is particularly striking in the case of Spain where deviations can
reach 3% and 5% in the case of solar PV and solar thermal generation.
Comparing the three models we observe that Model 2 also presents a
few results that are not congruent with the operations of power systems,
while the same does not occur in the case of Model 3. For example, in
the case of France both Models 1 and 2 estimate that an increase in solar
PV generation by 1 MWh is associated with an increase in net imports
of, respectively, 0.17 MWh and 0.25 MWh (both results are statistically
significant at the 1% level). In the case of Spain, Model 2 presents a
similar incongruent result as it does not present a statistically sig-
nificant effect for an association between solar PV generation and net
imports while also not presenting a statistically significant effect for an
association between solar thermal generation and CCGT generation..
These estimates that are not congruent with the operations of electricity
markets may be a result of the fact that Models 1 and 2 do not control
for daily fixed effects, while Model 3 does.
Regarding the case of the Spanish market specifically, Figure A3
shows the average intra-daily profile of total solar generation (solar PV
plus solar thermal) for each season. Comparing this generation profile
with that of Solar PV in Great Britain and France (Figs. A1 and A2,
respectively) it is noteworthy that, excluding during the winter, solar
thermal units tend produce electricity well past day-time hours (espe-
cially during the summer). This contrasts heavily with solar PV gen-
erators who do not generate electricity outside of day-time hours and is
15
In this case what is used for identification is the within-group variation,
which would be the within-month variation.
T. Oliveira, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 310–322

Table 4
Model 1 - Domestic generation and net imports offset per MWh change in RE generation and electricity demand.
Model 1

CCGT Coal Hydro Nuclear Other Net Pump Net Imp. Total
Great Britain
Demand 0.61*** 0.19*** 0.02*** 0.00 0.00*** 0.14*** 0.01*** 0.98
(0.001) (0.001) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.001) (0.001)
Wind − 0.63*** − 0.16*** − 0.02*** 0.00** − 0.01*** − 0.12*** − 0.05*** − 0.99
(0.007) (0.005) (0.001) (0.001) (0.002) (0.005) (0.006)
Solar − 0.58*** − 0.19*** − 0.03*** − 0.00*** − 0.00** − 0.11*** − 0.08*** −1
(0.005) (0.004) (0.001) (0.001) (0.001) (0.003) (0.004)

France
Demand 0.06*** 0.03*** 0.21*** 0.13*** 0.01*** 0.31*** 0.24*** 1
(0.000) (0.000) (0.001) (0.001) (0.000) (0.001) (0.001)
Wind − 0.07*** − 0.04*** − 0.22*** − 0.21*** − 0.01** − 0.31*** − 0.14*** −1
(0.005) (0.003) (0.008) (0.012) (0.002) (0.011) (0.016)
Solar − 0.07*** − −0.04*** − 0.41*** − 0.22*** − 0.02*** − 0.42*** 0.17*** −1
(0.003) (0.002) (0.004) (0.006) (0.001) (0.006) (0.009)

Spain
Demand 0.19*** 0.10*** 0.23*** 0.00 0.02*** 0.30*** 0.16*** 1.01
(0.001) (0.001) (0.001) (0.000) (0.000) (0.001) (0.002)
Wind − 0.21*** −0.14*** − 0.26*** − 0.00* − 0.01*** − 0.26*** − 0.16*** − 1.03
(0.005) (0.003) (0.004) (0.000) (0.001) (0.004) (0.006)
Solar PV − 0.28*** − 0.06*** − 0.20*** 0.00* − 0.02*** − 0.25*** − 0.20*** −1
(0.006) (0.004) (0.005) (0.000) (0.001) (0.006) (0.008)
Solar Th. − 0.10*** − 0.05*** − 0.18*** − 0.00*** − 0.02*** − 0.22*** − 0.45*** − 1.03
(0.010) (0.006) (0.008) (0.001) (0.002) (0.009) (0.013)

Standard errors in parentheses.

* p < 0.05 * * p < 0.01 * ** p < 0.001.

Table 5
Model 2 - Domestic generation and net imports offset per MWh change in RE generation and electricity demand.
Model 2

CCGT Coal Hydro Nuclear Other Net Pump Net Imp. Total
Great Britain
Demand 0.71*** 0.32*** 0.00 − 0.01** 0.00** 0.03*** − 0.07*** 0.98
(0.006) (0.006) (0.001) (0.002) (0.002) (0.001) (0.003)
Wind − 0.75*** − 0.25*** 0.00*** − 0.01* − 0.00 − 0.01*** − 0.02** − 1.03
(0.009) (0.009) (0.001) (0.004) (0.003) (0.001) (0.005)
Solar − 0.57*** − 0.31*** − 0.02*** − 0.00 0.00 − 0.04*** − 0.04*** − 0.98
(0.016) (0.013) (0.002) (0.006) (0.005) (0.002) (0.010)

France
Demand 0.13*** 0.09*** 0.13*** 0.29*** 0.03*** 0.13*** 0.21*** 1
(0.003) (0.003) (0.003) (0.007) (0.001) (0.002) (0.008)
Wind − 0.17*** − 0.10*** − 0.08*** − 0.18*** − 0.02*** − 0.07*** − 0.37*** −1
(0.011) (0.007) (0.011) (0.024) (0.004) (0.008) (0.028)
Solar − 0.16*** − 0.10*** − 0.34*** − 0.30*** − 0.04*** − 0.30*** 0.25*** −1
(0.018) (0.010) (0.015) (0.034) (0.005) (0.015) (0.041)

Spain
Demand 0.27*** 0.28*** 0.15*** 0.00 0.06*** 0.19*** 0.04*** 1
(0.008) (0.007) (0.004) (0.004) (0.002) (0.004) (0.007)
Wind − 0.23*** − 0.30*** − 0.12*** − 0.00 − 0.03*** − 0.16*** − 0.17*** − 1.01
(0.006) (0.009) (0.005) (0.003) (0.002) (0.004) (0.008)
Solar PV − 0.35*** − 0.11*** − 0.15*** 0.01 − 0.05*** − 0.33*** − 0.06 − 1.03
(0.040) (0.032) (0.023) (0.015) (0.007) (0.024) (0.042)
Solar Th. − 0.07 − 0.22*** − 0.10*** 0.03 0.00 − 0.20*** − 0.39*** − 0.95
(0.040) (0.043) (0.026) (0.023) (0.010) (0.026) (0.046)

Standard errors in parentheses.

* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001.

a natural consequence of the technical differences between solar PV and
solar thermal generators. However, the fact that solar thermal units
produce electricity during the night-time which, especially during the
summer, is a time when the CO2 intensity of the Spanish grid is higher
during the night-time relative to the day-time due to the large amounts
of solar generation during the day, intuitively should imply that the
marginal CO2 abatement of solar thermal generation may be higher
than that of solar PV generation. In effect, only the results of Model 3
are in line with this observation.
Overall, the results regarding the effect of changes in demand, wind
and solar generation on each type of generator and on net imports,
suggest that the results of Model 3 tend to be the most consistent with
the operations of electricity systems in practice. In contrast, some re-
sults of Model 1 fail to be consistent with operational practices in the
case of the French market and in the case of Model 2 this is true in both
the French and Spanish markets. Model 3 may present advantages in

317
T. Oliveira, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 310–322

Table 6
Model 3 - Domestic generation and net imports offset per MWh change in RE generation and electricity demand.
Model 3

CCGT Coal Hydro Nuclear Other Net Pump Net Imp. Total
Great Britain
Demand 0.70*** 0.22*** 0.01 *** 0.00 − 0.00 0.05*** − 0.01 0.98
(0.013) (0.012) (0.001) (0.001) (0.004) (0.003) (0.008)
Wind − 0.70*** − 0.22*** − 0.02*** 0.00 − 0.01*** − 0.03*** − 0.05*** − 1.03
(0.010) (0.009) (0.001) (0.001) (0.002) (0.002) (0.006)
Solar − 0.71*** − 0.17*** − 0.01*** − 0.00 − 0.01 − 0.05*** − 0.05*** − 0.99
(0.015) (0.012) (0.002) (0.002) (0.003) (0.003) (0.011)

France
Demand 0.08*** 0.05*** 0.16*** 0.16*** 0.02*** 0.22*** 0.33*** 1
(0.005) (0.003) (0.005) (0.010) (0.002) (0.006) (0.015)
Wind − 0.09*** − 0.04*** − 0.12*** − 0.16*** − 0.01*** − 0.17*** − 0.40*** −1
(0.009) (0.005) (0.008) (0.017) (0.003) (0.008) (0.020)
Solar − 0.04** − 0.03*** − 0.25*** − 0.21*** − 0.01 − 0.33*** − 0.13*** −1
(0.015) (0.008) (0.016) (0.030) (0.006) (0.021) (0.045)

Spain
Demand 0.31*** 0.11*** 0.21*** − 0.00 0.02*** 0.22*** 0.12*** 0.99
(0.017) (0.009) (0.007) (0.002) (0.003) (0.011) (0.016)
Wind − 0.20*** − 0.17*** − 0.17*** − 0.00 − 0.02*** − 0.24*** − 0.20*** −1
(0.007) (0.005) (0.004) (0.001) (0.001) (0.005) (0.009)
Solar PV − 0.17*** − 0.08*** − 0.16*** − 0.00 − 0.03*** − 0.29*** − 0.28*** − 1.02
(0.032) (0.021) (0.022) (0.005) (0.005) (0.027) (0.041)
Solar Th. − 0.14*** − 0.18*** − 0.13*** 0.01 0.00 − 0.26*** − 0.29*** − 0.98
(0.028) (0.021) (0.020) (0.005) (0.005) (0.026) (0.040)

Standard errors in parentheses.

* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001.

the identification of the effects of RE generation on emissions due to the
inclusion of several fixed effects which control for trends possibly
correlated in various timeframes. Specifically, hourly fixed effects that
vary by month are theoretically sound to control for hourly patterns
that may change with season, together with other seasonal trends. The
inclusion of a fixed effect for each day in the sample also makes sense
theoretically as it controls for related factors that can affect emissions
for several hours during a period of time, which include outages of
conventional generation plants, as well as changes in fuel and CO2
prices.
Our paper focuses on econometric models which present advantages
when compared to power system optimization models, as discussed in
Section 2. However, it should not be understated that environmental
impact assessments based on econometric models, being based on his-
torical data, imply that these impacts are determined by the past and
current fuel prices, grid infrastructure and operational systems (which,
in turn, are impacted by the policies that were and are in place as well).
As an electricity system undergoes structural changes, such as large
scale investments or divestments in generation capacity or in trans-
mission and distribution grids, changes in fuel or emissions costs or in
policies that affect the behavior of firms or consumers, its past opera-
tions are less relevant predictor of future operations.
In this sense, Ryan et al. [29] are correct in affirming that unless
grid infrastructure, policies and fuel prices are expected to remain
largely unchanged over a long time period then the results of such
models are likely to not be of great use for policy appraisals based on a
long-run perspective. However, with respect to investments in RE
generation, as these are made in an incremental way, we argue that the
ideal decision framework would be for an econometric analysis to be
performed to assess the environmental impacts regularly and sequen-
tially reconducted at various points in time in order to track the effects
of the investments and policies that support them. This would allow
decisions of a short and medium scope to be made based on more re-
liable estimates that depend on less assumptions, and are less resource
intensive, than those provided by power system optimization models
which are very sensitive to input assumptions and therefore are more
prone to offer less reliable short and medium run estimates. Although
uncommon, in this framework, policy decisions that are based on es-
timates for emissions factors would be flexible and adaptable so as to
continuously be optimized at each point in time.
While our conclusions are the result from analyzing the British,
French and Spanish electricity markets, it is likely that some of our
insights for each market may be relevant to other European markets. A
notable example is the German market, which presents some simila-
rities to the Spanish market in that both countries adopted very ag-
gressive policies to support investment in renewable energy. These
policies resulted in the mean cumulative penetration of wind and solar
generation in Germany in 2017 being over 20% of total generation
which is similar to the corresponding figure for Spain BMWi [46]. To
the best of our knowledge, there is currently no publication examining
the marginal displacement of CO2 emissions by renewable electricity
using econometric models. Based on a unit commitment mode, Weigt
et al. [24] perform an analysis over the period between 2006 and 2010
and show that renewable energy reduced CO2 emissions in Germany by
around 33 and 60 Mtons – which the authors estimate to be 10–18%
relative to a counterfactual scenario of no additional renewable energy
capacity being added to the grid.
The main conclusion of the present paper, specifically that assessing
the marginal abatement of CO2 emissions by renewable electricity
using econometric specifications that rely on fixed effect models may
produce more reliable results compared with specifications that do not
control for fixed effects, may be applicable to the German market. In
particular, the similarities between Germany and Spain in terms of re-
newable electricity penetration, and between Germany and France in
terms of a high degree of interconnection with neighboring markets,
intuitively suggest that an application of the analysis conducted in the
present paper to the German grid may result in a similar conclusion. An
important related development in the German market has been the
nuclear phase out. Had the penetration of renewable energy remained
constant during the phase out, both the average and the marginal CO2
emissions should expectedly have increased substantially as a result of
gas and coal-based plants having to substitute for the amount of elec-
tricity previously produced by nuclear plants. The nuclear phase out
would thus be expected to increase the estimates for marginal emissions

318
T. Oliveira, et al.
abated by renewable electricity relative to a counterfactual scenario
without the nuclear plants phase out.
6. Conclusion
Having access to accurate estimates of the amount of emissions
saved due to renewable energy (RE)generation is important for gov-
ernments, regulators, utilities and investors. The existing research
shows that the commonly used average emission factors may in many
cases not be appropriate approximations for calculations of CO2 sav-
ings, as the energy saved or displaced from conventional sources does
not typically impact all generation sources in the same proportion as
their average market share. This fact means that estimates of marginal
emissions factors, rather than the average ones, are more appropriate.
However, even though this fact is increasingly acknowledged in the
literature with many articles examining marginal emissions factors, in
particular those of wind generation, the fact is that the specifications
chosen can make results vary substantially which may lead to in-
accuracies in assessments both for investment decisions and policy
appraisals.
This paper contributes to the literature by comparing three models
based on those used by published articles that aimed to estimate the
marginal effects of renewable energy (in particular wind) on CO2
emissions. We compare these three models in terms of their estimates
for reductions in CO2 emissions associated with wind or solar genera-
tion using the British, French and Spanish markets as case studies. We
find that, in each market, the three models give a wide range of results
meaning that the impact of using an inappropriate econometric speci-
fication may be quite substantial as it can lead to inaccuracies in in-
vestment or policy decisions.
Taking together the results from each model for each of the three
markets regarding the effect of changes in demand, wind and solar
generation on each type of generator and on net imports, we observe
that the model which tends to report the results that are most consistent
with the operation of electricity systems is the one based on Novan [7].
This model specifies emissions as a function of system demand and
renewable generation accounting for hourly fixed effects which are
allowed to vary with each month in the sample and each day of the
week, together with a fixed effect for each day in the sample (Model 3
in Section 3). In contrast, other examined specifications are either un-
sound for theoretical reasons or some of their results are not congruent
with the operation of electricity systems in some of the examined
markets. This is a key point since policymaking aimed at supporting RE
investments is often guided by estimates of emissions savings, and
therefore the underpinning econometric specifications should not be
inadequate for the expressed research question. As an example, our
comparisons across the different specifications show that, in the pre-
sence of hourly data (or half-hourly), robustness checks should include
hourly fixed effects that are allowed to vary over time (e.g., as in Model
3).
Our findings have several implications. First, our results show that,
in each market, the three models give a wide range of results meaning
that the impact of using an inappropriate econometric specification for
estimating the emissions abatement associated with a specific RE gen-
eration project may be quite substantial as even apparently small dif-
ferences on the hourly level compound over the lifetime of the project.
Second, our results highlight the need for choosing econometric
Appendix. Data construction and treatment
As mentioned in Section 4, as data on actual half-hourly or hourly CO2 emissions are not available for the British, French or Spanish grids, we
multiply the electricity generated by a given source in each period by its carbon intensity (emissions factor) as in Staffell [1] and a similar procedure
is conducted for net imports.
In the case of the British grid, given that we study the same market in a relatively similar timeframe, we use the same emission factors as Staffell
[1] for each type of generation as well as carbon intensites for electricity imported or exported to the French, Irish and Dutch grids (estimated using
data on electricity generation by technology from ENTSO-E [42] and EuroStat [43], together with the technology carbon intensities used for the
319
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 310–322
specifications that are congruent with the datasets and with the op-
erational framework of the power systems being examined. Third, our
results show that in all markets examined the different models had in
common the effect of wind generation having a substantially different
effect from solar generation – according to Model 3, on a per MWh
basis, wind tends to offset substantially more CO2 emissions than solar
PV generation across all countries and the magnitude of this difference
varies from 10% in Great Britain and 26% in Spain to 187% in France.
Thus, support schemes for RE generation such as feed-in tariffs or
market premiums should be differentiated by technology in a way that
reflects their heterogeneous level of emissions savings instead of being
based on their investment costs, which is the most common approach to
policy design.
Acknowledgments
This work was financially supported by the research unit on
Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policy (project POCI-01-0145-
FEDER-006939), funded by FEDER funds (European Regional
Development Fund) through COMPETE2020 - Programa Operacional
Competitividade e Internacionalizao (POCI) - and by national funds
through FCT - Fundao para a Cincia e a Tecnologia. The funding source
had no involvement in study design, in the collection, analysis and
interpretation of data, in the writing of the report, and in the decision to
submit the article for publication.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors of this paper certify that they have no affiliations with
or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest
or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in
this manuscript.
Financial disclosure statement
Besides the funds mentioned in the Funding acknowledgement, the
authors certify that they have no financial relationship or interest
(currently or within the past 12 months) with any organization or entity
with any financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed
in this manuscript.
Data statement
The data used in this paper are publicly available from the following
websites.
National Grid. Available from 〈https://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/
electricity/market-operations-and-data〉(accessed February 21, 2018)
Elexon. Available from 〈https://www.elexonportal.co.uk〉(accessed
February 21, 2018)
ESIOS (2018) : Available from 〈https://www.esios.ree.es/es〉(ac-
cessed January 2, 2018)
RTE (2018) : Available from 〈http://www.rte-france.com/en/
eco2mix/eco2mix-co2-en〉(accessed January 2, 2018)
ENTSO-E(2018): Available from 〈https://www.entsoe.eu/db-
query/production/monthly-production-for-all-countries〉(accessed
January 2, 2018)
T. Oliveira, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 310–322

Fig. A1. Average hourly demand, CO2 intensity, wind and solar generation in the British grid per hour in each season of the year.

Fig. A2. Average hourly demand, CO2 intensity, wind and solar generation in the French grid per hour in each season of the year.

British grid). Thus, for the British grid the carbon intensities used for each technology and interconnected grid are as follows, in tCO2/MWh Coal
0.937, Oil 0.935, OCGT 0.651, CCGT 0.394, French grid 0.053, Irish grid 0.458 and Dutch grid 0.474.
Furthermore, as in Staffell [1] we consider that emissions related to pumped hydro storage are accounted for when the electricity was first
generated, and that biomass based generation should not be accounted for in line with United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
carbon accounting guidelines. We adopt the same approach in the case of the French and Spanish grids.
In the case of France we use the emission factors that the French TSO reports [45]. These correspond to, in tCO2/MWh, 0.956 for coal based
generation, 0.359 for CCGT, 0.593 for gas combustion turbines, 0.552 for other types of gas based generation, 0.777 for oil combustion turbines and
0.783 for other oil based generation except for cogeneration. For cogeneration the reported emission factors are 0.350 tCO2/MWh for gas based
generation, and 0.459 for generation based on oil. As in the British dataset, we do to not account for emissions from generation based on biomass, as

320
T. Oliveira, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 310–322

Fig. A3. Average hourly demand, CO2 intensity, wind and solar generation (solar PV plus solar thermal) in the Spanish grid per hour in each season of the year.

Table A1
Comparison between the British, French and Spanish markets relative to their average hourly generation, net imports, demand and CO2 intensity over our sample.
GB % of TG FR % of TG ES % of TG

Total Generation 32671 60316 27866

Net Imports 1981 6.06% − 6238 − 10.34% 417 1.50%
Pumped Net − 52 − 0.16% − 127 − 0.21% 93 0.33%
Nuclear 7388 22.61% 45569 75.55% 6320 22.68%
Cogeneration − 1316 2.18% 2906 10.43%
Other 1173 3.59% 1115 1.85% 616 2.21%
Coal 7886 24.14% 1213 2.01% 4776 17.14%
CCGT 11363 34.78% 1650 2.74% 2925 10.50%
Hydro 417 1.28% 6575 10.90% 3270 11.73%
Wind 3663 11.21% 2197 3.64% 5460 19.59%
Solar PV 833 2.55% 809 1.34% 901 3.23%
Solar Thermal − −− 599 2.15%
Demand 34767 54078 28315
CO2 Intensity (t/ 0.350 0.037 0.242
MWh)

Notes:
1) % of TG refers to the proportion of each variable in the average hourly total generation over our sample in the relevant market.
2) Data denominated in MWh unless indicated otherwise.

well as biogas and bio waste.

For Spain we use the same average carbon emission factors as [23] given that we study the same market in a relatively similar timeframe. These
emissions factors correspond to 0.961 and 0.372 tCO2/MWh for coal and CCGT plants respectivelly. For cogeneration we use the CO2 intensity
implied by the total annual CO2 emissions from cogeneration as reported by the Spanish TSO divided by the corresponding annual generation,
yielding a factor of 0.370 tCO2/MWh (most of the Spanish cogeneration during our sample period is based on natural gas). We note that we don’t
include an emission factor for oil based generation as its amount during our sample period is negligible.
We use estimates for the CO2 intensity factors of each market that is interconnected with Spain or France. Spain is interconnected with Portugal,
France, Morocco and Andorra, while France has interconnections with Belgium, Germany, Great Britain, Spain, Italy and Switzerland. The CO2
intensity factors we use for France, Spain and Britain correspond to the mean CO2 intensity calculated over our sample, respectivelly 0.037 t/MWh
and 0.242 t/MWh and 0.350 t/MWh. For Morocco there are few data available but according to the U.S. Department of Commerce's International
Trade Administration USDC [47], in 2015 Morocco's electricity generation mix was composed of coal (31%), natural gas (25.8%), fuel and diesel
(10%), hydro (22%) and wind generation (9.4%). Using the average CO2 coefficients that we use for French power plants this implies that the
Moroccon electricity grid has CO2 factor of 0.467 t/MWh. In the case of Andorra there are no available data to the best of our knowledge, but as most
generation from Andorra is based on hydro, with the remaining necessary electricity being imported, we assume its CO2 intensity is 0.
The CO2 intensity factors of the remaining markets are, as in Staffell [1], calculated based on the data available on the ENTSO-E [42] which
comprises total monthly generation in 2014 and 2015 for each market, decomposed by generation technology. We use these data to obtain the

321
T. Oliveira, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105 (2019) 310–322

proportion of total generation that is attributed to each fossil fuel based technology and multiply this value by the corresponding average CO2
coefficient we have used for French power plants. The resulting CO2 intensity factors are, in t/MWh, 0.309 for Portugal, 0.347 for Italy, 0.025 for
Switzerland and, for Belgium and Germany, 0.171 and 0.474 respectivelly. In the case of the French interconnections with Belgium and Germany,
the data available from the French TSO aggregates the net imports from both markets. Thus, in this case we use the average CO2 intensity from each
market weighted by the proportion of the 2014 and 2015 total generation from Belgium and Germany, resulting in the value of 0.443 in t/MWh.
In the particular case of the British datasets, there are periods in which the Elexon dataset contains errors where total supply (generation plus net
imports) is less than 95% of total demand. There are also periods in which nuclear generation (together with other types of generation) appear as
zero which is not consistent with also with the equality between supply and demand. We dropped the data from Elexon for the observations in which
either of the two mentioned conditions was verified, for a total of 137 observations (approximately 0.15% of total observations, 87648), and
interpolate these missing values by calculating the average of the existing preceding and subsequent half-hour periods weighted by their temporal
proximity to the missing observation. We then rescale the interpolated values to approximate supply to the demand values from the National Grid
dataset. This approach is similar to the one described in Staffell [1]. The datasets related to France and Spain do not contain such errors.

References
[1] Staffell Iain. Measuring the progress and impacts of decarbonising british electricity.
Energy Policy 2017;102:463–75.
[2] Cullen Joseph. Measuring the environmental benefits of wind-generated electricity.
Am Econ J: Econ Policy 2013;5(4):107–33.
[3] Hawkes AD. Estimating marginal CO2 emissions rates for national electricity sys-
tems. Energy Policy 2010;38(10):5977–87.
[4] Kaffine Daniel T, McBee Brannin J, Lieskovsky Jozef. Emissions savings from wind
power generation in texas. Energy J 2013;34(1):155.
[5] Wheatley Joseph. Quantifying CO2 savings from wind power. Energy Policy
2013;63:89–96. [ISSN 0301-4215].
[6] Amor Mourad Ben, de Villemeur Etienne Billette, Pellat Marie, Pineau Pierre-
Olivier. Influence of wind power on hourly electricity prices and ghg (greenhouse
gas) emissions: evidence that congestion matters from ontario zonal data. Energy
2014;66:458–69.
[7] Kevin Novan. Valuing the wind: renewable energy policies and air pollution
avoided. Am Econ J: Econ Policy 2015;7(3):291–326.
[8] Hoehne Christopher G, Chester Mikhail V. Optimizing plug-in electric vehicle and
vehicle-to-grid charge scheduling to minimize carbon emissions. Energy
2016;115:646–57.
[9] Yuksel Tugce, Tamayao Mili-Ann M, Hendrickson Chris, Azevedo Inês ML, Michalek
Jeremy J. Effect of regional grid mix, driving patterns and climate on the com-
parative carbon footprint of gasoline and plug-in electric vehicles in the united
states. Environ Res Lett 2016;11(4):044007.
[10] Di Cosmo Valeria, Malaguzzi Valeri Laura. How much does wind power reduce CO2
emissions? Evidence from the irish single electricity market. Environ Resour Econ
2017:1–25.
[11] Li Mo, Smith Timothy M, Yang Yi, Wilson Elizabeth J. Marginal emission factors
considering renewables: a case study of the us midcontinent independent system
operator (miso) system. Environ Sci Technol 2017;51(19):11215–23.
[12] Thind Maninder PS, Wilson Elizabeth J, Azevedo Inês L, Marshall Julian D.
Marginal emissions factors for electricity generation in the midcontinent iso.
Environ Sci Technol 2017;51(24):14445–52.
[13] Thomson R Camilla, Harrison Gareth P, Chick John P. Marginal greenhouse gas
emissions displacement of wind power in great britain. Energy Policy
2017;101:201–10.
[14] Fang Yingkai, Asche Frank, Novan Kevin. The costs of charging plug-in electric
vehicles (pevs): within day variation in emissions and electricity prices. Energy
Econ 2018;69:196–203.
[15] Ortega Margarita, Del Río Pablo, Montero Eduardo A. Assessing the benefits and
costs of renewable electricity. The spanish case. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2013;27:294–304.
[16] Bakhtyar B, Ibrahim Y, Alghoul MA, Aziz N, Fudholi Ahmad, Sopian
Kamaruzzaman. Estimating the CO2 abatement cost: substitute price of avoiding
CO2 emission (spae) by renewable energy? S feed in tariff in selected countries.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;35:205–10.
[17] Wang Yu, Zhou Sheng, Huo Hong. Cost and CO2 reductions of solar photovoltaic
power generation in china: perspectives for 2020. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2014;39:370–80.
[18] Cansino José M, Sánchez-Braza Antonio, L Rodríguez-Arévalo María. Driving forces
of spain? S CO2 emissions: a lmdi decomposition approach. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2015;48:749–59.
[19] Den Broek Machteld Van, Berghout Niels, Rubin Edward S. The potential of re-
newables versus natural gas with CO2 capture and storage for power generation
under CO2 constraints. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;49:1296–322.
[20] Adam Aminu Dankaka, Apaydin Gokhan. Grid connected solar photovoltaic system
as a tool for green house gas emission reduction in turkey. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2016;53:1086–91.
[21] Ortega-Izquierdo Margarita, del Río Pablo. Benefits and costs of renewable elec-
tricity in Europe. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;61:372–83.
[22] Ryan Lisa, Dillon Joseph, Monaca Sarah La, Byrne Julie, O’Malley Mark. Assessing
the system and investor value of utility-scale solar pv. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2016;64:506–17.
[23] Gutiérrez-Martín F, Da Silva-Álvarez RA, Montoro-Pintado P. Effects of wind
intermittency on reduction of CO2 emissions: the case of the spanish power system.
Energy 2013;61:108–17.
[24] Weigt Hannes, Ellerman Denny, Delarue Erik. CO2 abatement from renewables in
the german electricity sector: does a CO2 price help? Energy Econ
2013;40:S149–58.
[25] Clancy JM, Gaffney F, Deane JP, Curtis J, Gallachóir BPÓ. Fossil fuel and co 2
emissions savings on a high renewable electricity system-a single year case study for
ireland. Energy Policy 2015;83:151–64.
[26] Bergh Kenneth Van den, Delarue Erik, D’haeseleer William. Impact of renewables
deployment on the CO2 price and the CO2 emissions in the european electricity
sector. Energy Policy 2013;63:1021–31.
[27] Hitaj Claudia. Location matters: the impact of renewable power on transmission
congestion and emissions. Energy Policy 2015;86:1–16.
[28] Holttinen Hannele, Kiviluoma Juha, McCann John, Clancy Matthew, Millgan
Matthew, Pineda Ivan, et al. Reduction of CO2 emissions due to wind energy-
methods and issues in estimating operational emission reductions. In: Proceedings
of power & energy society general meeting. IEEE; 2015. p. 1–5.
[29] Ryan Nicole A, Johnson Jeremiah X, Keoleian Gregory A. Comparative assessment
of models and methods to calculate grid electricity emissions. Environ Sci Technol
2016;50(17):8937–53.
[30] Holdway Aaron R, Williams Alexander R, Inderwildi Oliver R, King David A.
Indirect emissions from electric vehicles: emissions from electricity generation.
Energy Environ Sci 2010;3(12):1825–32.
[31] Colett Joseph S, Kelly Jarod C, Keoleian Gregory A. Using nested average electricity
allocation protocols to characterize electrical grids in life cycle assessment. J Ind
Ecol 2016;20(1):29–41.
[32] Jansen Karel H, Brown Tim M, Samuelsen G Scott. Emissions impacts of plug-in
hybrid electric vehicle deployment on the us western grid. J Power Sources
2010;195(16):5409–16.
[33] Moreau Vincent, Bage Gontran, Marcotte Denis, Samson Réjean. Estimating mate-
rial and energy flows in life cycle inventory with statistical models. J Ind Ecol
2012;16(3):399–406.
[34] Archsmith James, Kendall Alissa, Rapson David. From cradle to junkyard: assessing
the life cycle greenhouse gas benefits of electric vehicles. Res Transp Econ
2015;52:72–90.
[35] EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. Available from 〈https://www.epa.gov/
statelocalenergy/avoided-emissions-and-generation-tool-avert〉 [Accessed 21
February 2018]; 2018.
[36] Siler-Evans Kyle, Azevedo Ines Lima, Morgan MGranger. Marginal emissions factors
for the us electricity system. Environ Sci Technol 2012;46(9):4742–8.
[37] Zivin Joshua S Graff, Kotchen Matthew J, Mansur Erin T. Spatial and temporal
heterogeneity of marginal emissions: implications for electric cars and other elec-
tricity-shifting policies. J Econ Behav Organ 2014;107:248–68.
[38] Chun Chang Ming, Dickey David A. Recognizing over differenced time series. J
Time Ser Anal 1994;15(1):1–18.
[39] Cochrane John H. A brief parable of over-differencing. Technical report, University
of Chicago, Unpublished, 2018. URL 〈http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.
cochrane/research/papers/overdifferencing.pdf〉.
[40] NationalGrid. National Grid. Available from 〈https://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/
electricity/market-operations-and-data〉 [Accessed 21 February 2018]; 2018.
[41] Elexon. Available from 〈https://www.elexonportal.co.uk〉 [Accessed 21 February
2018]; 2018.
[42] ENTSO-E. Available from 〈https://www.entsoe.eu/db-query/production/monthly-
production-for-all-countries〉 [Accessed 2 January 2018]; 2018.
[43] EuroStat. Available from 〈https://www.ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database〉
[Accessed 21 February 2018]; 2018.
[44] REE. Available from 〈https://www.esios.ree.es/es〉 [Accessed 2 January 2018];
2018.
[45] RTE. Available from 〈http://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/eco2mix-co2-en〉
[Accessed 2 January 2018]; 2018.
[46] BMWi. Available from 〈https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/EN/Dossier/renewable-
energy.html〉 [Accessed 19 August 2017]; 2018.
[47] USDC. United States Department of Commerce. Available from 〈https://www.
export.gov/article?Id=Morocco-Energy〉 [Accessed 2 January 2018]; 2018.

322