27
CARBON TRANSFER FACTOR IN THE NORDIC POWER MARKET Final presentation Geir Brønmo and Clémence Carnerero 31.08.2018
CARBON TRANSFER FACTOR IN THE NORDIC POWER MARKET Final presentation
Geir Brønmo and Clémence Carnerero 31.08.2018
COPYRIGHT©PÖYRY
PÖYRY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING – ENERGY
2
Market analysis and design
Transactions and Strategy
Grid and digitalisation MIDDLE EAST | ASIA
AMERICA | EUROPE
Oslo office
Global presence
Leading-edge consulting and advisory services along the whole commercial value
chain of the energy sector
Over 200 energy market experts Offering expert advice from strategy to implementation on
policy, regulation, business operations, financing and valuation and sustainability
Acted as market advisor on over 220GW of generation capacity worth €240bn since 2008 (gas, coal, onshore/offshore wind, hydro, solar, nuclear, interconnectors)
12 offices across Europe (Düsseldorf, Helsinki, London, Madrid, Milan, Oslo, Oxford, Stockholm, Paris, Vienna, Villach, Zurich)
COPYRIGHT©PÖYRY 3
Nordic power market physical characteristics and price drivers
Historical relationship between power prices in the Nordic region and cost of
production of coal generation
What is the carbon transfer factor and appropriate method to estimate it
Model the development of the carbon transfer factor from 2018 to 2040 for a
range of carbon scenarios
Analyse the response of the carbon transfer factor to variations in market
drivers
Illustrate the carbon price effect through an historical back test using Pöyry’s
BID3 power market model and a new carbon price
Model the carbon transfer factor in the past few years, 2013 to 2017, for a
range of carbon scenarios
Qualitative description
Historical model
analysis
Forward model
analysis
APPROACH
The project is conducted in 4 steps
Prove the existence of the carbon transfer factor and deconstruct the myth
that the carbon price is irrelevant for Nordic power prices
The main result is an estimate and interval range for the carbon transfer
factor over historical and future years
Conclusion
COPYRIGHT©PÖYRY
AGENDA
Qualitative description
Historical model analysis
4
Forward model analysis
Conclusion Conclusion
COPYRIGHT©PÖYRY
THE NORDIC POWER MARKET
5
The Nordic power market is hydro dominated and interconnected
Transfer volumes between the
Nordic markets are high due to
the level of interconnection
and the complementary nature
of the generation mix in the
Nordic system
The Nordic countries are for
analytical purposes ‘one
market’
Nordic interconnection Links to Europe Generation
There is also a significant
exchange across interconnectors
out of the Nordic region
New links are under construction
to Great Britain, Germany and
Netherlands
Trade provides security of supply
for the hydro system subject to
yearly and seasonal variations
The Nordic market is dominated
by hydro power with significant
reservoir capacity, followed by
nuclear power
Only a small fraction of
generation is from thermal
generation and the Nordic power
supply is mostly free from CO2
emissions
55%
21%
10%
6%8%
Hydro
Nuclear
Thermal
Biomass
Wind
COPYRIGHT©PÖYRY
PRICE SETTING IN THE NORDIC REGION
In thermal markets, e.g. Germany, Great Britain or the Netherlands, power prices are to a large extent driven by the cost of producing electricity, i.e. the cost of fuel and the cost of purchasing CO2 allowances
In the Nordic hydro market, supply is dominated by hydro power which has a near zero marginal cost. But, power prices are determined by alternative sources of meeting demand including fuel and CO2 prices on the Continent, since water can be stored in multi-season reservoirs
If reservoir hydro power was bid at zero like non-controllable renewable sources, the Nordic power prices would be periodically extreme
– We would have periods of very high generation with very low prices before reservoir storages run out of water, and very low generation and very high prices when reservoirs are empty
Hydro power producers therefore dispatch their generation by bidding their reservoir at a non-zero price
– A price which maximises their revenues and balances the market given the expected future value of the water storage
– This value is driven by the alternative to hydro power production: expected prices of the imported/exported electricity from the Continent
6
The Nordic power price is indirectly set by expected prices on the Continent
COPYRIGHT©PÖYRY
DRIVERS OF NORDIC POWER PRICES
7
The annual Nordic price level is set by commodity prices in Continental markets
COPYRIGHT©PÖYRY
DRIVERS OF NORDIC POWER PRICES
In the past 10 years, there has been a strong link between the cost of coal generation and Nordic prices under
average conditions
Hydrology is adding variations to the Nordic power price: a strong hydrological balance tend to give lower prices and
vice versa when the hydrological balance is negative
8
The Nordic power price is linked to commodity and carbon prices, aside from
periods with strong hydrological deviations
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18 P
rice
(€/M
Wh
, n
om
inal)
Hyd
rolo
gic
al
bala
nce
(T
Wh
)
Positive hydrological balance (oversupply)Negative hydrological balance (undersupply)Nordic power priceCost of production of coal generation
Nordic power prices, cost of coal generation and hydrological balance, 2008-2018
COPYRIGHT©PÖYRY 9
Marginal cost of CO2 emissions in thermal generation
CARBON TRANSFER FACTOR
The carbon transfer factor depends on the generation mix
The carbon transfer factor corresponds to the increase in the power price due to an increase in the CO2 price
– This can also be seen as the cost of CO2 emissions in the power generation, which depends on plant efficiency and fuel emission factor
In a thermal market, the carbon transfer factor depends on the fuel used for power generation
– 0.4tCO2/MWh in a gas only market
– 1.1tCO2/MWh in a lignite only market, due to lower plant efficiency and higher fuel carbon content
In a non-dispatchable RES market, the carbon transfer factor is zero due to no carbon content in the generation, given that the system is 100% RES with no thermal generation
In a dispatchable RES market, the carbon transfer factor depends on the price of the dispatchable generation
– Which is non-zero in the Nordic hydro market and influenced by the price of the electricity imported and exported from the Continent, and therefore by the carbon price
0.4
0.9
1.11.0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Gas Coal Lignite Oil shale
Ca
rbon
tra
nsfe
r fa
cto
r (t
CO
2/M
Wh
)Marginal cost of CO2 emissions
[tCO2
MWh−el]=
Fuel emission factor [tCO2
MWh−th]
Plant efficiency [MWh−elMWh−th
]
COPYRIGHT©PÖYRY 10
HOW TO ESTIMATE THE CARBON TRANSFER FACTOR
Quantitative analysis through power market modelling is required to estimate the
carbon pass-through
The cost of CO2 emissions in power generation and a qualitative
description only take you that far
– Load and availabilities vary from hour to hour throughout the year
changing the type of generation setting the power price
– The price of the dispatchable resource, like reservoir hydro power in
the Nordic power market, requires a complex optimisation to be
evaluated accurately since it is based on a set of internal and
external drivers
This
BID3
This study uses Pöyry’s BID3 quantitative power market model
used by a range of clients all over Europe to
– Find the optimal power price in all hours accounting for variations in
supply/demand
– Represent the diversity of interconnected power markets in Europe –
thermal, renewable, hydro
– Simulate the optimal decision of hydro dispatch behaviour
This allows the carbon transfer factor to be evaluated
thoroughly not only for a wide range of years but also for an
extended geography
COPYRIGHT©PÖYRY 11
Power prices obtained in BID3 back test versus market
PÖYRY’S BID3 MODEL VALIDATION
BID3 simulates power markets in a very accurate and realistic way
Annual power prices typically
deviate by less than €1/MWh
and monthly modelled prices
follow observed variations,
aside from some specific period
of times for the Nordic countries
The market gets access to
constant new information during
a year – updated weather
forecasts, actual measurements
of inflow, reservoir levels or
snow accumulation – while the
back test is done with weather
expectations as of 1 January of
the year
– Snow deficit in winter 2013 and
heavy precipitation in summer
2015 led to some aggressive
hydro power dispatch behaviour
difficult to reproduce
COPYRIGHT©PÖYRY
METHODOLOGY
12
Simulations and calculations to estimate the carbon transfer factor
The Nordic carbon transfer factor is analysed through Pöyry’s BID3 power market model
– Historically for the years 2013 to 2017
– Based on observed market fundamentals
– Forward for the years 2018-2020-2025-2030-2035-2040
– Base Case on a flat coal price at $80/t, a flat gas price at €18/MWh and other inputs (demand, capacity, interconnection,
etc) taken from Pöyry’s Central scenario
– 5 sensitivities with variations in fuel prices and production mix along with transmission capacities are also explored
Carbon transfer factor calculations
– 4 carbon scenarios with increasing CO2 price, €10-20-30-40/tCO2
– For historical modelling, the reference scenario corresponds to observed CO2 prices while in the case of
the forward modelling, the reference scenario corresponds to a zero CO2 price
Carbon transfer factor estimates
– Norway, Sweden and Denmark factors derived from average of price areas (no consumption weighting)
– Nordic factor derived from average of Nordic countries (no consumption weighting)
– Results in other European markets are also obtained
Carbon transfer factorcarbon scenario= Power pricecarbon scenario − Power pricereference scenario
Carbon pricecarbon scenario − Carbon pricereference scenario
COPYRIGHT©PÖYRY
AGENDA
Qualitative description
Historical analysis
13
Forward model analysis
Conclusion Conclusion
Historical model analysis
COPYRIGHT©PÖYRY
HISTORICAL MODEL ANALYSIS
14
A €24/tCO2 higher carbon price in the past few years would have increased the
Nordic power price by close to €17/MWh
2013-2017
– Average carbon price: €6/tCO2
– Average power price across Nordic
price areas: €30.0/MWh
– Pöyry’s back test average across
Nordic price areas: €30.4/MWh
– An accurate estimation of historical
power prices
Assuming a carbon price of €30/tCO2
over 2013-2017, the average power
price in the Nordic region would have
been €46.7/MWh
– This results in a close to €17/MWh
increase in the power price for a
€24/tCO2 increase in the carbon price
– All other inputs being equal
Effect of carbon price increase on Nordic power price, 2013-2017
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
Price (
€/M
Wh, nom
inal)
Effect of carbon price increase on power price
Modelled power price on CO2 price at €30/tCO2
Modelled power price on historical CO2 price (back test)
Historical power price
COPYRIGHT©PÖYRY
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Carb
on t
ransfe
r fa
cto
r (t
CO
2/M
Wh)
Historical modelling - Range of carbon scenarios
Historical modelling - Average of carbon scenarios
Gas only market
Coal/Lignite only market
Nordic CO2 emission factor in place/2011 study - Carbon price transfer in Norway: 0.67
HISTORICAL MODEL ANALYSIS
15
The carbon transfer factor in the Nordic region is estimated at 0.71tCO2/MWh on
average over the years 2013-2017
This means that every time the carbon price increases by €1/tCO2, the power price increases by €0.71/MWh
With an average carbon price in the period around €6/tCO2, this quantifies the impact of carbon on the power price to roughly €4/MWh, or close to 15% of the 2013-2017 average Nordic power price
The Nordic carbon transfer factor was the highest in 2013 has gradually decreased
– This is due to the influence of decreasing coal installed capacities and progressively increasing capacity of intermittent renewables as well as yearly variations in Nordic conditions (such as hydrology)
An increase in the CO2 price generally leads to a decrease in the Nordic pass-through
– A high CO2 price incentivises gas generation which has lower carbon emission cost than coal and pushes the factor lower
Historical Nordic carbon transfer factor, 2013-2017
COPYRIGHT©PÖYRY
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
No
rdic
No
rwa
y
Sw
ede
n
Fin
land
De
nm
ark
Germ
any
Ne
therl
and
s
Pola
nd
Esto
nia
La
tvia
Lithu
ania
Carb
on t
ransfe
r fa
cto
r (t
CO
2/M
Wh)
Historical modelling - Range of years 2013-2017Historical modelling - Average of years 2013-2017Gas only marketCoal/Lignite only market
Nordic CO2 emission factor in place/2011 study - Carbon price transfer in Norway: 0.67
HISTORICAL MODEL ANALYSIS
16
The Nordic carbon transfer factor is similar within the Nordic countries and in par
with the German pass-through
Historical carbon transfer factor in selected countries, 2013-2017 The carbon transfer factor for the Nordic region is calculated as the average of the pass-through found across the four Nordic countries
Factors in Norway, Denmark and Sweden are similar and close to Germany
– There is an extensive transmission capacity with Germany and German thermal generation indirectly sets the price of Nordic hydro power
The factor is higher in Finland than in the other Nordic countries as the country is directly interconnected to Estonia
Estonia is dominated by oil shale generation and has the highest carbon transfer factor of the Baltic region
– Latvia and Lithuania have a higher share of gas generation and dependence on imports
The lowest factor is found for the Netherlands where gas generation dominates while the highest factor is found in Poland where lignite generation dominates
COPYRIGHT©PÖYRY
AGENDA
Qualitative description
Historical model analysis
17
Forward model analysis
Conclusion Conclusion
COPYRIGHT©PÖYRY
FORWARD MODEL ANALYSIS – BASE CASE
18
The Nordic carbon transfer factor is projected to decrease further in the future
Projected Nordic carbon transfer factor, 2018-2040
The Nordic carbon transfer factor is 0.58tCO2/MWh in 2018
– A level similar to the factor found for 2017
The future Nordic carbon transfer factor is evaluated at 0.49tCO2/MWh on average over the years 2020 to 2030 and expected to decrease gradually in the long-term
– Declining to 0.43tCO2/MWh by 2030 and 0.36tCO2/MWh by 2040, below the cost of CO2 emission for gas-fired generation
Several long-term developments explain this trend
– Coal and lignite-fired plants are gradually decommissioned on the Continent
– CCGT plants are then called to run more often to meet demand and the generation mix changes from coal setting the price to gas setting the price
– RES push thermal plants out of merit leading to an increased number of price periods during which the power price is independent of the carbon price
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
20
22
20
23
20
24
20
25
20
26
20
27
20
28
20
29
20
30
20
31
20
32
20
33
20
34
20
35
20
36
20
37
20
38
20
39
20
40
Carb
on t
ransfe
r fa
cto
r (t
CO
2/M
Wh)
Forward modelling - Range of carbon scenarios
Forward modelling - Average of carbon scenarios
Gas only market
Coal/Lignite only market
COPYRIGHT©PÖYRY
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
20
22
20
23
20
24
20
25
20
26
20
27
20
28
20
29
20
30
20
31
20
32
20
33
20
34
20
35
20
36
20
37
20
38
20
39
20
40
Carb
on t
ransfe
r fa
cto
r (t
CO
2/M
Wh)
Nordic GermanyEstoniaGas only market Coal/Lignite only market
FORWARD MODEL ANALYSIS – BASE CASE
19
The downward trend in the carbon pass-through is projected across regions
Projected carbon transfer factor in selected countries,
2018-2040
The German and the Nordic carbon
pass-through factor are expected to be
very similar in the future and follow the
same trend
– Nordic prices will continue to be driven by
prices on the Continent, and even more so
when more interconnectors are being built
A downward trend is observed in other
European markets as well
– There is an expected similarity in capacity
mix between countries in the long-term:
lower coal, higher intermittent renewables
– The Estonian factor is pushed up by oil
shale in the early years, but lower
conventional generation and higher
intermittent renewables lead there as well
to a lower carbon pass-through towards
2040
COPYRIGHT©PÖYRY 20
Renewable capacity scenarios in 2030
FORWARD MODEL ANALYSIS – SENSITIVITIES
There is some uncertainty in the long-term pass-through and sensitivities can shed
light on potential upsides and downsides
The carbon transfer factor is somewhat
uncertain far out in time as it is subject to the
long-term evolution of the generation mix, i.e.
the share of coal versus gas setting the price
and the evolution of the share of intermittent
renewable generation
– A way to cope with these uncertainties is to re-
evaluate the future carbon transfer factor
regularly and to analyse the response of the
pass-through to different market drivers
5 sensitivities have been explored, where
parameters are varied individually
– High/Low coal price, ±50% ($40/t and $120/t)
– High/Low gas price, ±50% (€9/MWh and
€27/MWh)
– High renewable and transmission capacity,
770GW renewable capacity in 2030 against
650GW in Base case
*) ‘JCR’ values from Renewable technologies in the EU electricity
sector: trends and projections report. ‘EU 32% RES (Estimated)’ is
a value extrapolated by Pöyry from the EUCO3030 scenario
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
EU
27%
RE
S (
EU
CO
27
)
EU
27%
RE
S (
EU
CO
30
)
EU
30%
RE
S (
EU
CO
303
0)
EU
32%
RE
S (
Estim
ate
d)
Base c
ase
Hig
h R
ES
JCR Pöyry
Renew
able
capacity (
GW
)
COPYRIGHT©PÖYRY
FORWARD MODEL ANALYSIS – SENSITIVITIES
21
Carbon transfer factor for the Nordic power market and Germany, Base case and
sensitivities
2020 2030 2040
Nord
ic
Germ
any
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
20
22
20
23
20
24
20
25
20
26
20
27
20
28
20
29
20
30
20
31
20
32
20
33
20
34
20
35
20
36
20
37
20
38
20
39
20
40
Carb
on t
ransfe
r fa
cto
r (t
CO
2/M
Wh)
Forward modelling - Range of carbon scenariosForward modelling - Average of carbon scenariosGas only marketCoal/Lignite only market
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Basecase
Lowgas
Highcoal
Highgas
Lowcoal
HighRES
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Basecase
Lowgas
Highcoal
Highgas
Lowcoal
HighRES
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Basecase
Lowgas
Highcoal
Highgas
Lowcoal
HighRES
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Basecase
Lowgas
Highcoal
Highgas
Lowcoal
HighRES
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Basecase
Lowgas
Highcoal
Highgas
Lowcoal
HighRES
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Basecase
Lowgas
Highcoal
Highgas
Lowcoal
HighRES
COPYRIGHT©PÖYRY
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Basecase
Lowgas
Highcoal
Highgas
Lowcoal
HighRES
Carb
on t
ransfe
r fa
cto
r (t
CO
2/M
Wh)
FORWARD MODEL ANALYSIS – SENSITIVITIES
22
Low gas and High coal give a downside to the carbon factor in 2020, upside is seen
in opposite cases
Projected Nordic carbon transfer factor, Base case and
sensitivities, 2020
Low Gas/High Coal
– Lower gas (or higher coal) prices lead to
a shift from coal to gas generation
– More gas generation setting the power
price decreases the carbon transfer factor
due to a lower cost of CO2 emissions
High Gas/Low Coal
– Higher gas (or lower coal) prices lead to a
shift from gas to coal generation
– More coal generation setting the power
price increases the carbon transfer factor
due to a higher cost of CO2 emissions
High RES
– Only a small decrease in the carbon
factor is observed as the renewable
capacity is not significantly higher than in
the Base case and RES do not dominate
the price setting
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
20
22
20
23
20
24
20
25
20
26
20
27
20
28
20
29
20
30
20
31
20
32
20
33
20
34
20
35
20
36
20
37
20
38
20
39
20
40
Carb
on t
ransfe
r fa
cto
r (t
CO
2/M
Wh)
Forward modelling - Range of carbon scenarios
Forward modelling - Average of carbon scenarios
Gas only market
Coal/Lignite only market
COPYRIGHT©PÖYRY
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Basecase
Lowgas
Highcoal
Highgas
Lowcoal
HighRES
Carb
on t
ransfe
r fa
cto
r (t
CO
2/M
Wh)
FORWARD MODEL ANALYSIS – SENSITIVITIES
23
There is no upside to the carbon pass-through in 2040 but additional downside in
the case of a high renewable capacity
Projected Nordic carbon transfer factor, Base case and
sensitivities, 2040
Low Gas/High Coal/High Gas/Low Coal
– Little variation from the Base case
– Coal/lignite generation has been gradually decommissioned
– Coal/lignite plants set the price only in a very limited number of hours and gas generation dominates price setting
High RES
– The RES capacity is such that there are even more low price hours where CO2 does not intervene in the Continental price setting than in the Base case
– The carbon transfer factor is decreased from 0.36tCO2/MWh in the Base case to 0.19tCO2/MWh in the High RES sensitivity in 2040
2030 is a transition between these two stages, with some impact of fuel prices and a relatively substantial pass-through in the High RES sensitivity
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
20
22
20
23
20
24
20
25
20
26
20
27
20
28
20
29
20
30
20
31
20
32
20
33
20
34
20
35
20
36
20
37
20
38
20
39
20
40
Carb
on t
ransfe
r fa
cto
r (t
CO
2/M
Wh)
Forward modelling - Range of carbon scenarios
Forward modelling - Average of carbon scenarios
Gas only market
Coal/Lignite only market
COPYRIGHT©PÖYRY
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
20
18
20
20
20
22
20
24
20
26
20
28
20
30
20
32
20
34
20
36
20
38
20
40
Share
of
low
price h
ours
(%
)
Carb
on t
ransfe
r fa
cto
r (t
CO
2/M
Wh)
Carbon transfer factor - Base case
Carbon transfer factor - High RES
Number of low price hours - Base case
Number of low price hours - High RES
FORWARD MODEL ANALYSIS – SENSITIVITIES
24
The impact of a higher renewable capacity increases after 2030
Up to 2030, even though renewables
increase faster in the High RES sensitivity
they still do not represent the major part of
the generation and therefore cannot
strongly influence price setting
– The carbon pass-through is still substantial
in 2030 and projected at 0.40tCO2/MWh
versus 0.43tCO2/MWh in the Base case
From the 2030s, the effect of higher
renewable generation becomes more
significant when the share of low price
hours exceeds 12%
– Thermal plants are however still needed to
meet demand in a certain amount of time
throughout the year and the pass-through
remains relatively high
– The pass-through is expected to be
0.19tCO2/MWh in 2040 compared to
0.36tCO2/MWh in 2040 in the Base case
Nordic carbon transfer factor, Base Case and High RES
sensitivity, 2018-2040
COPYRIGHT©PÖYRY
AGENDA
Qualitative description
Historical model analysis
25
Forward model analysis
Conclusion
COPYRIGHT©PÖYRY
KEY FINDINGS
26
Quantitative modelling demonstrates the influence of the carbon price on the
Nordic power market
The carbon transfer factor estimated historically is found to be 0.71tCO2/MWh
– There is a good alignement between the 2017 and 2018 values
The Nordic carbon transfer factor is evaluated at 0.49tCO2/MWh on average between 2020 and 2030 and is expected to decline in the long-term due to
– A shift from coal/lignite to gas setting the price on the Continent
– An increasing penetration of renewable generation that start setting the price in more hours by the end of the projection period
Fuel sensitivity analyses show variations in the carbon transfer factor mostly in the medium-term while there is limited upside in the long-term due to Pöyry’s anticipated evolution of the thermal capacity mix
Even in a high renewable sensitivity, the carbon price continues to affect the power price as thermal plants are still needed to meet demand and the carbon transfer factor is non-zero
Nordic carbon transfer factor, 2013-2040
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
20
13
20
15
20
17
20
19
20
21
20
23
20
25
20
27
20
29
20
31
20
33
20
35
20
37
20
39
Ca
rbon
tra
nsfe
r fa
cto
r (t
CO
2/M
Wh
)
Forward modelling - Range of sensitivitiesForward modelling - Base caseHistorical modellingGas only marketCoal/Lignite only market
Historical modelling - Average of years 2013-2017: 0.71
Nordic CO2 emission factor in place/2011 study - Carbon price transfer in Norway: 0.67
Carbon pass-through
(tCO2/MWh) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Historical/Forward
modelling - Base case 0.83 0.82 0.69 0.64 0.60 0.58 0.56 0.48 0.43 0.42 0.36
