Energy Prices and Costs - Final Report - Annexes v12.3

Study on Energy Prices,
Costs and Subsidies and

their Impact on Industry
and Households
Annexes to the Final report

Contract details
European Commission – DG Energy
Study on Energy Prices, Costs and Subsidies and their Impact on Industry and Households
DG ENER/Unit A4/Year 2017-Vigie No 2017-359 V2.0
Service request under framework contract MOVE/ENER/SRD.1/2016-498 Lot 2
Presented by
Trinomics B.V.
Westersingel 34
3014 GS Rotterdam
The Netherlands
Contact person
Mr. Koen Rademaekers
T: (+31) 010-341 45 92
E: Koen.rademaekers@trinomics.eu
Authors
Koen Rademaekers, Matthew Smith, Jessica Yearwood, Yamina Saheb, Joris Moerenhout (all Trinomics)
Karine Pollier, Nathalie Debrosses, Thierry Badouard, Aurelien Peffen (Enerdata)
Hector Pollitt, Sophie Heald (Cambridge Econometrics)
Matthias Altman (LBST)
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the contributions of Emma Smith and all country experts to the data
gathering. In addition we would like to thank the cooperation and inputs provided by CEER and the
National Regulatory Agencies across the EU Member States.
Finally, we would like to signal our thanks to the Commission Services for an effective and enjoyable
cooperation in the preparation of this report and the support provided in data gathering and in the
successful iteration and completion of this report.
Date
Rotterdam, 3 September 2018
Disclaimer
The information and views set out in this study are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect
the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data
included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may
be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Rotterdam, 3 September 2018
Client: European Commission – DG Energy
Service request under framework contract MOVE/ENER/SRD.1/2016-498
Study on Energy Prices, Costs and Subsidies and their Impact on Industry and
Households
In association with:
TABLE OF CONTENT
Annex A: Country and NACE abbreviations ........................................................ 7

Annex B: T1 - International energy prices – data source tables ............................. 10
Annex C: T1 - International energy prices – EU price movements .......................... 23
Annex D: T2 - List of countries available for calculation of energy cost shares in sector
C 29
Annex E: T2 - Evolution of the energy cost shares ............................................. 30
Annex F: T2 & T4 - Description of E3ME.......................................................... 33
Annex G: T2 - Results from decomposition of energy costs (EU28)......................... 41
Annex H: T3 – List of indicators .................................................................... 46
Annex I: T3 - Country factsheets................................................................... 50
Annex J: T4 - Classification and definition of interventions ............................... 395
Accelerated depreciation ................................................................................... 395
Biofuels blending mandate ................................................................................. 396
Capacity payment ........................................................................................... 396
Differentiated grid connection charges ................................................................... 396
Energy efficiency obligations ............................................................................... 396
Exemption and reduction - Energy tax .................................................................... 396
Exemption and reduction - Fuel excise tax ............................................................... 396
Exemption and reduction - Taxes and levies ............................................................. 396
Exemption and reduction - VAT (related to energy use)................................................. 396
Feed-in tariffs ............................................................................................... 397
Feed-in premiums ........................................................................................... 397
Free allocation of emission allowances in the EU ETS ................................................... 397
Grants 397
Interruptible load schemes ................................................................................. 397
Price guarantees (cost support) ............................................................................ 397
Price guarantees (price regulation)........................................................................ 398
RD&D budget................................................................................................. 398
RES quotas with tradable certificates ..................................................................... 398
Soft loans..................................................................................................... 398
Tax credits ................................................................................................... 399
Tax allowances .............................................................................................. 399
Others 399
Annex K: T4 – Country and sector subsidies factsheets ..................................... 400

Country factsheets.......................................................................................... 400
Sector factsheets............................................................................................ 432
Annex L: T4 - Results from the econometric analysis ....................................... 442

Annex M: T4 - Financial supports to the nuclear industry .................................. 444

1.1 Financial supports for nuclear R&D .......................................................... 444
1.2 Non-R&D financial support measures to nuclear industry .............................. 445
1.3 Nuclear funds for waste management and plant decommissioning .................. 446
LIST OF TABLES
Table 0-1: Country abbreviations list (ISO 2-digit codes) ............................................................... 7

Table 0-2: NACE code list .................................................................................................. 8
Table 0-1: Box plot of EU28 wholesale electricity prices 2008-2017 ................................................ 23
Table 0-2: EU28 wholesale electricity prices 2008-2017, individual Member States lines visible, outliers named
............................................................................................................................. 23
Table 0-3: Box plot of EU28 household retail electricity prices 2008-2017 ......................................... 24
Table 0-4: EU28 household retail electricity prices 2008-2017, individual Member States lines visible, outliers
named ..................................................................................................................... 24
Table 0-5: Box plot of EU28 industrial retail electricity prices 2008-2017 .......................................... 25
Table 0-6: EU28 industrial retail electricity prices 2008-2017, individual Member States lines visible, outliers
named ..................................................................................................................... 25
Table 0-7: Box plot of EU28 wholesale natural gas prices 2008-2017 ............................................... 26
Table 0-8: EU28 wholesale natural gas prices 2008-2017, individual Member States lines visible, outliers named
............................................................................................................................. 26
Table 0-9: Box plot of EU28 household retail natural gas prices 2008-2017 ........................................ 27
Table 0-10: EU28 household retail natural gas prices 2008-2017, individual Member States lines visible, outliers
named ..................................................................................................................... 27
Table 0-11: Box plot of EU28 industrial retail natural gas prices 2008-2017........................................ 28
Table 0-12: EU28 industrial retail natural gas prices 2008-2017, individual Member States lines visible, outliers
named ..................................................................................................................... 28
Table H.0-1 Regression results showing the estimated impact of renewables on the wholesale electricity price
............................................................................................................................ 442
Table H-2 Fixed effects regression results showing the estimated impact of household and commercial grants
and loans on electricity demand ....................................................................................... 443
Table H-3 Fixed effects regression results showing the estimated impact of industry electricity grants and loans
on electricity demand................................................................................................... 443
Table H-4 Fixed effects regression results showing the estimated impact of household and commercial grants
and loans on household gas demand ................................................................................... 443
Table H -5 Fixed effects regression results showing the estimated impact of industry electricity grants and
loans on industry gas demand .......................................................................................... 443
Table 0-1: Nuclear R&D financial supports (million euros, 2017 prices) (Source IEA)............................. 444
Table 0-2: Non-R&D financial support measures for nuclear industry (million euros, 2017 prices).............. 445
Table 0-3: Origin of the financing of nuclear decommissioning/waste management funds. ..................... 448
LIST OF FIGURES
No table of figures entries found.

Annex A: Country and NACE abbreviations

Table 0-1: Country abbreviations list (ISO 2-digit codes)
EU28 Code Non-EU G20 Code

Austria AT Argentina AR
Belgium BE Australia AU
Bulgaria BG Brazil BR
Croatia HR Canada CA
Cyprus CY China CN
Czech Republic CZ India IN
Denmark DK Indonesia ID
Estonia EE Japan JP
Finland FI Mexico MX
France FR Russia RU
Germany DE Saudi Arabia SA
Greece EL South Africa ZA
Hungary HU South Korea KR
Ireland IE Turkey TR
Italy IT United States US
Latvia LV Norway NO
Lithuania LT Switzerland CH
Luxembourg LU
Malta MT
Netherlands NL
Poland PL
Portugal PT
Romania RO
Slovakia SK
Slovenia SI
Spain ES
Sweden SE
United Kingdom UK
Table 0-2: NACE code list
NACE 1 NACE 2
A Agriculture
A01 Crop and animal production, hunting and related service activities
A Agriculture
A02 Forestry and logging
A03 Fishing and aquaculture
B D Cross sector
B D Infrastructure
B Fossil fuels
D CHP and district heating
D Electricity
B & D Energy D Electricity from fossil fuels
industry D Electricity from nuclear
D Energy storage
D Heat pumps
D RES
D RES for electricity production
D RES for heating and cooling
C Manufacturing
C Energy intensive manufacturing industry
C10 food products
C11 beverages
C12 tobacco products
C13 textiles
C14 wearing apparel
C15 leather and related products
C16 wood and of products of wood and cork, except furniture; articles of
straw and plaiting materials
C17 paper and paper products
C18 Printing and reproduction of recorded media
C19 coke and refined petroleum products
C Manufacturing C20 chemicals and chemical products
C21 basic pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical preparations
C22 rubber and plastic products
C23 other non-metallic mineral products
C24 basic metals
C25 fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment
C26 computer, electronic and optical products
C27 electrical equipment
C28 machinery and equipment n.e.c.
C29 motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers
C30 other transport equipment
C31 furniture
C32 Other manufacturing
C33 Repair and installation of machinery and equipment
NACE 1 NACE 2
H49 Rail transport
H49 Road transport
H Transport
H50 Water transport
H51 Air transport
HH Households HH Households
O Public O Public
Z Non-households Z Non-households
Cross sector Cross sector
Annex B: T1 - International energy prices –

data source tables
Electricity Wholesale prices
Country
code Source Price type Comment
Consumption (total) weighted
average of EU28 MS for which
EU28 Calculated data is available
Calculated monthly averages Base Load:
AT Platts EXAA-AT 00.00-24.00. Day ahead contracts
BE Platts BPX-BE 00.00-24.00. Day ahead contracts
BG Platts IBEX-BG 00.00-24.00. Day ahead contracts
CY No data
CZ Platts OTE-CZ 00.00-24.00. Day ahead contracts
DE Platts EPEXspot-DE 00.00-24.00. Day ahead contracts
00.00-24.00. Day ahead contracts.
The European Commission calculated a
simple mean of NP-DK East and NP-DK
West markets to give a final result for
DK Platts NP - DK NP-DK.
EE Platts NP-EE 00.00-24.00. Day ahead contracts
EL Platts DESMIE-GR 00.00-24.00. Day ahead contracts
ES Platts OMEL-ES 00.00-24.00. Day ahead contracts
Calculated monthly averages Base Load
FI Platts NP-FI 00:00-24:00. Day ahead contracts.
FR Platts EPEXspot-FR 00.00-24.00. Day ahead contracts
HR ERRA
HU Platts HUPX-HU 00.00-24.00. Day ahead contracts
IE Platts IE-SEMO 00.00-24.00. Day ahead contracts
IT Platts GME-IT 00.00-24.00. Day ahead contracts
LT Platts NP-LT 00.00-24.00. Day ahead contracts
LU Platts Proxy used: EPEXspot-DE 00.00-24.00. Day ahead contracts
LV Platts NP-LV 00.00-24.00. Day ahead contracts
MT Platts Proxy used: GME-IT 00.00-24.00. Day ahead contracts
NL Platts APX-NL 00.00-24.00. Day ahead contracts
PL Platts PolPX-PL 00.00-24.00. Day ahead contracts
PT Platts OMEL-PT 00.00-24.00. Day ahead contracts
RO Platts OPCOM-RO 00.00-24.00. Day ahead contracts
SE Platts NP-SE Disc & NP-SE3 Stockholm 00.00-24.00. Day ahead contracts
SI Platts BSP-SI 00.00-24.00. Day ahead contracts
SK Platts OTE-SK 00.00-24.00. Day ahead contracts
UK Platts Elexon-UK 00.00-24.00. Day ahead contracts
AG No data
Queensland - used as proxy for AU, as
largest power producing state in AU, also
AU Australian Energy Regulator similar consumption to NSW and Victoria
Unable to source wholesale price, used
BR CEIC industrial price as proxy
The monthly and yearly average Hourly
Ontario Energy Price (HOEP) reported in
CA IESO ¢/kWh from May 2002 to 2017.
CN CEIC industrial price as proxy
IN No data

ID CEIC industrial price as proxy
JP Japan Electric Power Exchange
IEA Mexico Energy Outlook:
ME Special Report 2016 Estimated from figure 1.11 in report
RF ERRA
SA No data
ZA No data
KO No data
TR ERRA
Simple average of weighted daily prices
US EIA ICE Daily Indices. across the 9 USA electricity hubs
Electricity Retail Household Prices

Country
Consumption
(residential) weighted
average of EU28 MS for
EU28 Calculated which data is available
ESTAT- HICP-
monthly prices- Band DD : 5 000 kWh <
el_2008_2017 Consumption < 15 000 Band DD selected on the basis that this is band with highest
AT 261 kWhAll market share in ongoing EC data collection.
ESTAT- HICP- Band DB : 1 000 kWh <
monthly prices- Consumption < 2 500 Band DB selected on the basis that this is band with highest
BE el_2008_2017 96 kWhAll market share in ongoing EC data collection.
ESTAT- HICP-
BG 267 kWhAll market share in ongoing EC data collection.
ESTAT- HICP-
monthly prices- Band DC : 2 500 kWh <
el_2008_2017 Consumption < 5 000 Band DC selected on the basis that this is band with highest
CY 186 kWhAll market share in ongoing EC data collection.
ESTAT- HICP-
CZ 189 kWhAll market share in ongoing EC data collection.
ESTAT- HICP-
DE 192 kWhAll market share in ongoing EC data collection.
ESTAT- HICP-
DK 195 kWhAll market share in ongoing EC data collection.
ESTAT- HICP-
EE 282 kWhAll market share in ongoing EC data collection.
ESTAT- HICP-
monthly prices- Band DC : 2 500 kWh < Selected as residential consumption band with highest market
el_2008_2017 Consumption < 5 000 share, based on Eurostat (2015) E lectricity prices: price systems
EL 213 kWhAll 2014
ESTAT- HICP-
ES 201 kWhAll 2014
ESTAT- HICP-
FI 207 kWhAll market share in ongoing EC data collection.
ESTAT- HICP-
monthly prices- Band DD : 5 000 kWh < Selected as residential consumption band with highest market
FR 294 kWhAll 2014
Band DC : 2 500 kWh <
Consumption < 5 000
Eurostat kWhAll taxes and levies Band DC selected on the basis that this is band with highest
HR [nrg_pc_204] included market share in ongoing EC data collection.
ESTAT- HICP-
HU 216 kWhAll 2014
ESTAT- HICP-
IE 303 kWhAll market share in ongoing EC data collection.
ESTAT- HICP-
IT 222 kWhAll 2014
ESTAT- HICP-
monthly prices- Band DB : 1 000 kWh < Selected as residential consumption band with highest market
LT 141 kWhAll 2014
ESTAT- HICP-
el_2008_2017 Consumption < 5 000
LU 228 kWhAll No data - assumption of default band DC.
ESTAT- HICP-
LV 231 kWhAll market share in ongoing EC data collection.
ESTAT- HICP-
MT 234 kWhAll 2014
ESTAT- HICP-
NL 237 kWhAll market share in ongoing EC data collection.
ESTAT- HICP-
monthly prices- Band DB : 1 000 kWh < Selected as residential consumption band with highest market
PL 156 kWhAll 2014
ESTAT- HICP-
PT 243 kWhAll 2014
ESTAT- HICP-
monthly prices- Band DB : 1 000 kWh <
el_2008_2017 Consumption < 2 500 Band DB selected on the basis that this is band with highest
RO 162 kWhAll market share in ongoing EC data collection.
ESTAT- HICP-
SE 249 kWhAll 2014
ESTAT- HICP-
SI 336 kWhAll market share in ongoing EC data collection.
ESTAT- HICP-
SK 255 kWhAll 2014
ESTAT- HICP-
UK 258 kWhAll 2014
AG No data
IEA Energy Prices
AU and Taxes End-user Assumed annual value is for Jan
Average Current Prices:
Source: Electricity:
BR CEIC Residence (Brazil)
IEA Energy Prices
CA and Taxes End-user Assumed annual value is for Jan
CN: Service Price: 36
City Avg: Electricity: for
CN CEIC Resident: 220v (China) The retail price data covers the 36 biggest cities.
IN No data
Electricity: Average
Price: Household
ID CEIC (Indonesia)
IEA Energy Prices
JP and Taxes End-user Assumed annual value is for Jan
IEA Energy Prices
ME and Taxes End-user Assumed annual value is for Jan
Avg Consumer Price:
Electricity Supply
RF CEIC (Russian Federation)
Total, all - excluding
SA ERRA taxes
See table 3.5 in
http://www.eskom.co.za/Documents/EcoOverviewElectricitySA-
ZA ESKOM Total including all taxes 2017.pdf
Retail Price: E lectricity:
KO CEIC Average (South Korea)
Band DB : 1 000 kWh <
Consumption < 2 500 Selected as residential consumption band with highest market
Eurostat kWhAll taxes and levies share, based on Eurostat (2015) E lectricity prices: price systems
TR [nrg_pc_204] included 2014
Electricity: Average
Retail Price: Residential
US CEIC (USA)
Electricity Retail Industrial Prices

Country
Consumption (industrial)
weighted average of EU28 MS
EU28 Calculated for which data is available
Band ID : 2 000 MWh <
Consumption < 20 000 MWh; Assumption of default consumption
ESTAT- HICP-monthly prices- Excluding VAT and other band, as no data from other sources or
AT el_2008_2017 263 recoverable taxes and levies suitable proxy to estimate.
BE el_2008_2017 266 recoverable taxes and levies suitable proxy to estimate.
Band ID : 2 000 MWh < Selected as industrial consumption band
Consumption < 20 000 MWh; with highest market share in Bulgaria,
ESTAT- HICP-monthly prices- Excluding VAT and other based on Eurostat (2015) E lectricity
BG el_2008_2017 269 recoverable taxes and levies prices: price systems 2014
Band IE : 20 000 MWh < Selected as industrial consumption band
Consumption < 70 000 MWh; with highest market share in Cyprus,
CY el_2008_2017 356 recoverable taxes and levies prices: price systems 2014
CZ el_2008_2017 275 recoverable taxes and levies suitable proxy to estimate.
Consumption < 20 000 MWh; Assumption - Band selected on the basis
ESTAT- HICP-monthly prices- Excluding VAT and other of closest match of EU and IEA price
DE el_2008_2017 362 recoverable taxes and levies data.
DK el_2008_2017 281 recoverable taxes and levies suitable proxy to estimate.
Consumption < 20 000 MWh; with highest market share in Estonia,
EE el_2008_2017 284 recoverable taxes and levies prices: price systems 2014
EL el_2008_2017 299 recoverable taxes and levies suitable proxy to estimate.
ES el_2008_2017 287 recoverable taxes and levies suitable proxy to estimate.
Band IB : 20 MWh < Consumption Selected as industrial consumption band
< 500 MWh ; Excluding VAT with highest market share in Finland,
ESTAT- HICP-monthly prices- and other recoverable taxes and based on Eurostat (2015) E lectricity
FI el_2008_2017 125 levies prices: price systems 2014
< 500 MWh ; Excluding VAT with highest market share in France,
FR el_2008_2017 296 levies prices: price systems 2014
Excluding VAT and other band, as no data from other sources or
HR Eurostat [nrg_pc_205] recoverable taxes and levies suitable proxy to estimate.
HU el_2008_2017 302 recoverable taxes and levies suitable proxy to estimate.
< 500 MWh ; Excluding VAT with highest market share in Ireland,
IE el_2008_2017 137 levies prices: price systems 2014
< 500 MWh ; Excluding VAT with highest market share in Italy, based
ESTAT- HICP-monthly prices- and other recoverable taxes and on Eurostat (2015) Electricity prices:
IT el_2008_2017 140 levies price systems 2014
< 500 MWh ; Excluding VAT with highest market share in Lithuania,
LT el_2008_2017 143 levies prices: price systems 2014
LU el_2008_2017 314 recoverable taxes and levies suitable proxy to estimate.
LV el_2008_2017 317 recoverable taxes and levies suitable proxy to estimate.

MT el_2008_2017 320 recoverable taxes and levies suitable proxy to estimate.
Consumption < 20 000 MWh; with highest market share in the
ESTAT- HICP-monthly prices- Excluding VAT and other Netherlands, based on Eurostat (2015)
NL el_2008_2017 323 recoverable taxes and levies Electricity prices: price systems 2014
Consumption < 20 000 MWh; with highest market share in the
ESTAT- HICP-monthly prices- Excluding VAT and other Netherlands, based on Eurostat (2015)
PL el_2008_2017 326 recoverable taxes and levies Electricity prices: price systems 2014
< 500 MWh ; Excluding VAT with highest market share in Portugal,
PT el_2008_2017 161 levies prices: price systems 2014
RO el_2008_2017 332 recoverable taxes and levies suitable proxy to estimate.
SE el_2008_2017 335 recoverable taxes and levies suitable proxy to estimate.
SI el_2008_2017 338 recoverable taxes and levies suitable proxy to estimate.
Consumption < 20 000 MWh; with highest market share in Slovakia,
SK el_2008_2017 341 recoverable taxes and levies prices: price systems 2014
Band IG : Consumption > 150 Selected as industrial consumption band
000 MWh; Excluding VAT and with highest market share in the UK,
ESTAT- HICP-monthly prices- other recoverable taxes and based on Eurostat (2015) E lectricity
UK el_2008_2017 557 levies prices: price systems 2014
AG No data
AU No data
; Average Current Prices:
Source: Electricity: Industry
BR CEIC (Brazil)
This total price includes a tax amount
(typically less than 10% of the total
price), part of which is a (recoverable)
General Sales Tax. No data is available
on the precise split between the two.
The price is also the average of prices in
multiple states and territories which
each have their own different excise and
CA IEA Energy Prices and Taxes ; Total price sales tax regimes.
; CN: Usage Price: 36 City Avg:
Electricity for Industry: 35 kV & The retail price data covers the 36
CN CEIC Above (China) biggest cities.
IN No data
; Electricity: Average Price:
ID CEIC Industrial (Indonesia)
This price represents the total price less
an adjustment to account for the
(recoverable) consumption tax part of
the price. This was set at 5% until 2014,
whereby it increased to 8%. These
amounts have been deducted in the
JP IEA Energy Prices and Taxes ; Total (less taxes) price used in the tool.
VAT excluded from price. No excise
ME IEA Energy Prices and Taxes ; Total price taxes.
RF ERRA Total; all - excluding taxes Non-residential
Total; All taxes and levies
SA ERRA included. (No taxes in place) Non-residential
ZA No data
VAT excluded from price, excise taxes
KO IEA Energy Prices and Taxes ; Total price included.
Excluding VAT and other band, as no data from other sources or
TR Eurostat [nrg_pc_205] recoverable taxes and levies suitable proxy to estimate.
Price may include a (recoverable) state
; Electricity: Average Retail sales tax - which varies by state, rates
US CEIC Price: Industrial (USA) vary fro m 0-7.25%.
Natural gas wholesale prices

Country
AT Platts Hub; Simple average of daily

prices
BE Platts Hub; Simple average of daily

prices
BG Comext EBP-RF; Simple average of daily
prices
CY No data
CZ OTE Hub; Simple average of daily
prices
DE Platts Hub; Simple average of daily
prices
DK Platts Hub; Simple average of daily
prices
EE Comext EBP-RF; Simple average of daily
prices
EL Comext EBP-RF; Simple average of daily
prices
ES Comext EBP-DZ; Simple average of daily
prices
FI Finnish gas exchange Hub; Simple average of daily
prices
FR Platts Hub; Simple average of daily
prices
HR Eurostat data provided by the ; Simple average of daily prices
European Commission, value of
pipeline gas import - WSP, value
in EURs
HU Comext EBP-RF; Simple average of daily
prices
IE Comext EBP-UK; Simple average of daily Outlier values in 2011 removed from
prices adjusted series
IT Platts Hub; Simple average of daily
prices
LT Comext EBP-RF; Simple average of daily
prices
LU Enerdata report Proxy average of DE and BE Wholesale
gas prices (weighted by the share of the
gas supplied from BE or DE). We
calculated 62.6% (from BE 6.2TWh) and
37.4% (from DE 3.7TWh). Starting from
2007-7. (2003-4 to 2007-6 the LU price is
100% BE price as there is no DE data for
this time).
https://estore.enerdata.net/energy-
market/luxembourg-energy-report-and-
data.html
LV Comext EBP-RF; Simple average of daily
prices
MT No data
NL Platts Hub; Simple average of daily
prices
PL ERRA
PT Comext EBP-ES; Simple average of daily
prices
RO Comext EBP-RF; Simple average of daily
prices
SE Comext EBP-DK; Simple average of daily
prices
SI Comext EBP-RF; Simple average of daily
prices
SK Comext EBP-RF; Simple average of daily
prices
UK Platts UK NBP; Simple average of daily
prices
AG Knoema ( World Gas World liquefied natural gas Adjusted global LNG average
Intelligence; World Bank) (LNG) landed prices, Monthly
Update $/MMBtu (Observation
data)
AU Australian Energy Regulator Average daily weighted
imbalance price ($ per
gigajoule)
BR Bluegold research Global LNG Prices Adjusted global LNG average
CA Bloomberg Terminal Calculated from daily prices of 15
Canadian wholesale natural gas
benchmarks (including day-ahead,
border prices and near curve)
CN CEIC Wtd Avg_All Borders
IN Knoema ( World Gas World liquefied natural gas Adjusted global LNG average
data)
ID Knoema ( World Gas Indonesian Liquified Natural Gas

Intelligence; World Bank) Monthly Price - US Dollars per
Million Metric British Thermal
Unit
JP Thomson-Reuters + Waterborne LNG average import prices
ME Knoema ( World Gas World liquefied natural gas Adjusted global LNG average
data)
RF ERRA
SA No data
ZA No data
KO Thomson-Reuters + Waterborne LNG average import prices
TR ERRA
US Thomson-Reuters Henry Hub - daily spot prices
Natural gas retail household prices

Country
Consumption (residential)
Band D2 : 20 GJ < Consumption
ESTAT - HICP monthly prices NG < 200 GJ; A ll taxes and levies Assumed default, as no data, possible
AT 2008-2017 included proxies eg. DE, also D2
Selected as residential consumption
Band D2 : 20 GJ < Consumption band with highest market share, based
ESTAT - HICP monthly prices NG < 200 GJ; A ll taxes and levies on Eurostat (2015) Gas prices: price
BE 2008-2017 included systems 2014
BG 2008-2017 included systems 2014
CY No data No household natural gas use
CZ 2008-2017 included proxies eg. SK, also D2
DE 2008-2017 included systems 2014
ESTAT - HICP monthly prices NG < 200 GJ; A ll taxes and levies Assumed default, as no data or good
DK 2008-2017 included proxy
band with highest market share, based
ESTAT - HICP monthly prices NG Band D3 : Consumption > 200 on Eurostat (2015) Gas prices: price
EE 2008-2017 GJ; All taxes and levies included systems 2014
< 200 GJ; A ll taxes and levies on Eurostat (2015) Gas prices: price
EL Eurostat_gas_HH_nrg_pc_202 included systems 2014
ES 2008-2017 included systems 2014
FI No data No household natural gas use
FR 2008-2017 included systems 2014
HR Eurostat_gas_HH_nrg_pc_202 included systems 2014
HU 2008-2017 included systems 2014
IE 2008-2017 included systems 2014
IT 2008-2017 included systems 2014
LT 2008-2017 included systems 2014

LU 2008-2017 included proxies eg. BE, also D2
LV 2008-2017 included systems 2014
MT No data No household natural gas use
NL 2008-2017 included systems 2014
PL 2008-2017 included systems 2014
band with highest market share, based
ESTAT - HICP monthly prices NG Band D1 : Consumption < 20 GJ; on Eurostat (2015) Gas prices: price
PT 2008-2017 All taxes and levies included systems 2014
RO 2008-2017 included systems 2014
ESTAT - HICP monthly prices NG < 200 GJ; A ll taxes and levies Assumed default, as no data or good
SE 2008-2017 included proxy
SI 2008-2017 included systems 2014
SK 2008-2017 included systems 2014
UK 2008-2017 included systems 2014
AG No data
AU No data
Average Current Prices: Source:
BR CEIC Natural Gas (Brazil)
CA IEA Energy Prices and Taxes End-user Assumed annual value is for Jan
CN: Service Price: 36 City Avg:
Pipe Natural Gas: for Resident The retail price data covers the 36
CN CEIC (China) biggest cities.
IN No data
ID No data
JP IEA Energy Prices and Taxes End-user Assumed annual value is for Jan
ME IEA Energy Prices and Taxes End-user Assumed annual value is for Jan
RF ERRA End-user
SA ERRA End-user
ZA No data No household natural gas use
KO IEA Energy Prices and Taxes End-user Assumed annual value is for Jan
TR Eurostat_gas_HH_nrg_pc_202 included systems 2014
Natural gas retail industrial prices

Country
Consumption (residential)
Band I4 : 100 000 GJ <
Consumption < 1 000 000 GJ;
ESTAT - HICP monthly prices NG Excluding VAT and other Assumed default band as no data or
AT 2008-2017 recoverable taxes and levies suitable proxy
Band I4 : 100 000 GJ <
BE 2008-2017 recoverable taxes and levies suitable proxy
Band I4 : 100 000 GJ < Selected as industrial consumption band
Consumption < 1 000 000 GJ; with highest market share, based on
ESTAT - HICP monthly prices NG Excluding VAT and other Eurostat (2015) Gas prices: price systems
BG 2008-2017 recoverable taxes and levies 2014
CY No data
ESTAT - HICP monthly prices NG Band I4 : 100 000 GJ < Assumed default band as no data or
CZ 2008-2017 Consumption < 1 000 000 GJ; suitable proxy
Excluding VAT and other

recoverable taxes and levies
Band I4 : 100 000 GJ <
ESTAT - HICP monthly prices NG Excluding VAT and other Assumption - based on closest match of
DE 2008-2017 recoverable taxes and levies prices with IEA data
Band I4 : 100 000 GJ <
DK 2008-2017 recoverable taxes and levies suitable proxy
EE 2008-2017 recoverable taxes and levies 2014
Band I4 : 100 000 GJ <
Excluding VAT and other Assumed default band as no data or
EL Eurostat [nrg_pc_203] recoverable taxes and levies suitable proxy
ES 2008-2017 recoverable taxes and levies 2014
Band I4 : 100 000 GJ <
FI Eurostat [nrg_pc_203] recoverable taxes and levies suitable proxy
FR 2008-2017 recoverable taxes and levies 2014
Consumption < 100 000 GJ; with highest market share, based on
Excluding VAT and other Eurostat (2015) Gas prices: price systems
HR Eurostat [nrg_pc_203] recoverable taxes and levies 2014
Band I4 : 100 000 GJ <
HU 2008-2017 recoverable taxes and levies suitable proxy
IE 2008-2017 recoverable taxes and levies 2014
IT 2008-2017 recoverable taxes and levies 2014
LT 2008-2017 recoverable taxes and levies 2014
Band I4 : 100 000 GJ <
LU 2008-2017 recoverable taxes and levies suitable proxy
Band I4 : 100 000 GJ <
LV 2008-2017 recoverable taxes and levies suitable proxy
MT No data
Selected as industrial consumption band
Band I4 : 100 000 GJ < with 2nd highest market share, based on
Consumption < 1 000 000 GJ; Eurostat (2015) Gas prices: price systems
ESTAT - HICP monthly prices NG Excluding VAT and other 2014 - BandI6 has highest share but no
NL 2008-2017 recoverable taxes and levies price data.
PL 2008-2017 recoverable taxes and levies 2014
PT 2008-2017 recoverable taxes and levies 2014
Selected as industrial consumption band
Band I6 : Consumption > 4 000 with highest market share, based on
ESTAT - HICP monthly prices NG 000 GJ; Excluding VAT and other Eurostat (2015) Gas prices: price systems
RO 2008-2017 recoverable taxes and levies 2014.
Band I4 : 100 000 GJ <
SE 2008-2017 recoverable taxes and levies suitable proxy
SI 2008-2017 recoverable taxes and levies 2014

SK 2008-2017 recoverable taxes and levies 2014
UK 2008-2017 recoverable taxes and levies 2014.
AG No data
AU No data
Average Reference Price:
BR CEIC Natural Gas (Brazil)
No consumption band, average
CA IEA Energy Prices and Taxes price; Total price Price excludes GST. No excise taxes.
CN: Usage Price: 36 City Avg: The retail price data covers the 36
CN CEIC Natural Gas for Industry (China) biggest cities.
IN No data
ID No data
No consumption band, average Excludes (recoverable) consumption tax.
JP IEA Energy Prices and Taxes price; Total price No excise taxes.
ME IEA Energy Prices and Taxes price; Total price No VAT or excise taxes charged.
ERRA Natural Gas Non- No consumption band, average
RF residental Prices price; Pre-tax
SA No data
ZA No data
KO IEA Energy Prices and Taxes price; Total price No VAT or excise taxes charged.
Band I4 : 100 000 GJ <
TR Eurostat [nrg_pc_203] recoverable taxes and levies suitable proxy
Price includes a (recoverable) state sales
No consumption band, average tax, rates vary between states from 0-
US IEA Energy Prices and Taxes price; Total price 7.25%.
Petroleum products – petrol retail prices

Country
EU28 Oil Bulletin Euro-super 95(I) EU28 Consumption weighted average.
Monthly average of Oil Bulletin weekly
data
All Oil Bulletin Euro-super 95(I) Monthly average of Oil Bulletin weekly
individual data
EU
Member
States
AG GIZ international fuel prices
AU IEA Energy Prices and Taxes Premium unleaded 95 RON Assumed annual value is for Jan
(litre)
BR GIZ international fuel prices
CA IEA Energy Prices and Taxes Premium unleaded 95 RON Assumed annual value is for Jan
(litre)
CN GIZ international fuel prices
IN GIZ international fuel prices
ID GIZ international fuel prices Subsidised price
JP IEA KWES Premium unleaded 95 RON Assumed annual value is for Jan
(litre)
ME IEA Energy Prices and Taxes Premium unleaded 95 RON Assumed annual value is for Jan
(litre)
RF GIZ international fuel prices
SA GIZ international fuel prices
ZA GIZ international fuel prices
KO IEA Energy Prices and Taxes Premium unleaded 95 RON Assumed annual value is for Jan
(litre)
TR IEA Energy Prices and Taxes Premium unleaded 95 RON Assumed annual value is for Jan
(litre)
US EIA - Gasoline and diesel fuel Regular Gaso line
update
Petroleum products – diesel retail prices

Country
EU28 Oil Bulletin Gas oil automobile / Automotive EU28 Consumption weighted average
gas oil /Dieselkraftstoff(I)
All Oil Bulletin Gas oil automobile / Automotive Monthly average of Oil Bulletin weekly
individual gas oil /Dieselkraftstoff(I) data
EU28
Member
States
AG GIZ international fuel prices

AU IEA Energy Prices and Taxes Household
BR GIZ international fuel prices
CA IEA Energy Prices and Taxes Household
CN GIZ international fuel prices
IN GIZ international fuel prices
ID GIZ international fuel prices Subsidised price
JP IEA Energy Prices and Taxes Household
ME IEA Energy Prices and Taxes Household
RF GIZ international fuel prices
SA GIZ international fuel prices
ZA GIZ international fuel prices
KO IEA Energy Prices and Taxes Household
TR IEA Energy Prices and Taxes Household
US EIA - Diesel fuel pump price Household
history
Petroleum products – LPG retail prices

Country
EU28 Oil Bulletin GPL pour moteurLPG motor fuel EU28 Consumption weighted average
All Oil Bulletin GPL pour moteurLPG motor fuel Monthly average of Oil Bulletin weekly
individual data
EU28
Member
States
AG No data
AU IEA Energy Prices and Taxes Assumed annual value is for Jan
BR No data
CA IEA Energy Prices and Taxes Assumed annual value is for Jan
CN No data
IN No data
ID No data
JP IEA Energy Prices and Taxes Assumed annual value is for Jan
ME No data
RF No data
SA No data
ZA No data
KO IEA Energy Prices and Taxes Assumed annual value is for Jan
TR IEA Energy Prices and Taxes Assumed annual value is for Jan
US US AFDA
Petroleum products – CNG retail prices

Country
EU28 EU28 No data
Austria AT http://cngeurope.com/
Belgium BE http://cngeurope.com/
Bulgaria BG http://cngeurope.com/
Cyprus CY No data
Czech CZ http://cngeurope.com/
Republic
Germany DE http://cngeurope.com/
Denmark DK http://cngeurope.com/
Estonia EE No data
Greece EL http://cngeurope.com/
Spain ES http://cngeurope.com/
Finland FI http://cngeurope.com/
France FR http://cngeurope.com/
Croatia HR http://cngeurope.com/
Hungary HU http://cngeurope.com/
Ireland IE http://cngeurope.com/
Italy IT http://cngeurope.com/
Lithuania LT http://cngeurope.com/
Luxembourg LU http://cngeurope.com/
Latvia LV http://cngeurope.com/
Malta MT No data
Netherlands NL http://cngeurope.com/
Poland PL http://cngeurope.com/
Portugal PT http://cngeurope.com/
Romania RO http://cngeurope.com/
Sweden SE http://cngeurope.com/
Slovenia SI http://cngeurope.com/
Slovakia SK http://cngeurope.com/
United UK http://cngeurope.com/
Kingdom
Argentina AG No data
Australia AU No data
Brazil BR No data
Canada CA No data
China CN No data
India IN No data
Indonesia ID No data
Japan JP No data
Mexico ME No data
Russia RF http://cngeurope.com/
Saudi SA No data
Arabia
South Africa ZA No data
South Korea KO No data
Turkey TR http://cngeurope.com/
USA US US AFDA
Petroleum products – High sulphur fuel oil prices

Country
EU28 Oil Bulletin Fuel oil -Schweres EU28 Consumption weighted average
Heizöl(III)Soufre > 1%Sulphur >
1%Schwefel > 1%
All Oil Bulletin Fuel oil -Schweres Monthly average of Oil Bulletin weekly
individual Heizöl(III)Soufre > 1%Sulphur > data
EU28 1%Schwefel > 1%
Member
States
AG No data
AU No data
BR No data
CA IEA Energy Prices and Taxes Assumed annual value is for Dec
CN No data
IN No data
ID No data
JP IEA Energy Prices and Taxes Assumed annual value is for Dec
ME IEA Energy Prices and Taxes Assumed annual value is for Dec
RF No data
SA No data
ZA No data
KO IEA Energy Prices and Taxes Assumed annual value is for Dec
TR IEA Energy Prices and Taxes Assumed annual value is for Dec
US IEA Energy Prices and Taxes Assumed annual value is for Dec
Petroleum products – Low sulphur fuel oil prices

Country
EU28 Oil Bulletin Fuel oil -Schweres EU28 Consumption weighted average
Heizöl(III)Soufre
All Oil Bulletin Fuel oil -Schweres Monthly average of Oil Bulletin weekly
individual Heizöl(III)Soufre data
EU28
Member
States
AG No data
AU No data
BR No data
CA No data
CN No data
IN No data
ID No data
ME No data
RF No data
SA No data
ZA No data
TR No data
US No data
Petroleum products – Heating oil prices

Country
EU28 Oil Bulletin Gas oil de chauffageHeating gas EU28 Consumption weighted average
oilHeizöl(II)
All Oil Bulletin Gas oil de chauffageHeating gas Monthly average of Oil Bulletin weekly
individual oilHeizöl(II) data
EU28
Member
States
AG No data
AU No data
BR No data
CA IEA Energy Prices and Taxes Assumed annual value is for Jan
CN No data
IN No data
ID No data
ME No data
RF No data
SA No data
ZA No data
TR IEA Energy Prices and Taxes Assumed annual value is for Jan
US IEA Energy Prices and Taxes Assumed annual value is for Jan
Petroleum products: crude oil prices

Country Source Relevant info Comment
Average World Bank - Global Economic
Monitor Commodities (Pink
Sheet)
Brent World Bank - Global Economic
Sheet)
Dubai World Bank - Global Economic
Sheet)
WTI World Bank - Global Economic
Sheet)
Annex C: T1 - International energy prices –

EU price movements
Note on Box Plots: The box represents the 25th to 75th percentile of data in the set, the line represents
the median (middle) value of the range, whilst the cross represents the mean. The T lines extending
from the box representing the full range of values in that period, except in the case of values denoted
by o which represent outliers in the data. The mean and median values diverge from the EU averages
presented in chapter 3 as the values here are unweighted, whilst in chapter 3 the EU average is
calculated from country values weighted by consumption.
Table 0-1: Box plot of EU28 wholesale electricity prices 2008-2017
Source: Own calculations
Table 0-2: EU28 wholesale electricity prices 2008-2017, individual Member States lines visible, outliers named
140
United Kingdom
120
Sweden
100
Malta
EUR2017/MWh
80 Ireland Hungary
60
40 EU28 - W eighted Avg.
20 Portugal
R omania France
Sweden

Table 0-3: Box plot of EU28 household retail electricity prices 2008-2017
Table 0-4: EU28 household retail electricity prices 2008-2017, individual Member States lines visible, outliers
named
350
Cyprus
Belgium
Germany
300 Denmark
250
EU28 -
Weighted
EUR2017/MWh
200 Avg.
Malta
150
100 Bulgaria
50

Table 0-5: Box plot of EU28 industrial retail electricity prices 2008-2017
Table 0-6: EU28 industrial retail electricity prices 2008-2017, individual Member States lines visible, outliers
named
250
Cyprus
200
M alta Italy
Ireland
150 Portugal
EUR2017/MWh
EU28 -
Weighted
Avg.
100
Sweden
Bulgaria
50 Luxembourg

Table 0-7: Box plot of EU28 wholesale natural gas prices 2008-2017
Table 0-8: EU28 wholesale natural gas prices 2008-2017, individual Member States lines visible, outliers named
70
60 Poland
Croatia
50 Slovenia
EUR2017/MWh
40 Lithuania
30 France Italy
EU28
Weighted
20 Avg.
Slovakia
10
Latvia Greece
Ireland

Table 0-9: Box plot of EU28 household retail natural gas prices 2008-2017
Source: Ow n calculations
Table 0-10: EU28 household retail natural gas prices 2008-2017, individual Member States lines visible, outliers
named
160
140
Portugal
120 Sweden
100
EUR2017/MWh
Denmark
80
Netherlands
EU28
60 Weighted
Avg.
40
Romania
Croatia
Estonia
20
Table 0-11: Box plot of EU28 industrial retail natural gas prices 2008-2017
Table 0-12: EU28 industrial retail natural gas prices 2008-2017, individual Member States lines visible, outliers
named
60
Greece
50
Slovenia
Finland
40
EUR2017/MWh
Sweden
30
EU28
Weighted
Lithuania Avg.
20
Romania
10
Annex D: T2 - List of countries available for calculation of energy cost

shares in sector C
C103 - Fruit and vegetables C103 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK
C106 - Grain products C106 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK
C132 - Textiles C132 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK
C161 - Sawmills C161 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK
C171 - Pulp and paper C171 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK
C172 - Articles of paper C172 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK
C192 - Refineries C192 AT, BE, EE, EL, FR, HR, HU, IT, LU, LV, PL, PT, SI, UK
C201 - Basic chemicals C201 AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK
C206 - Man-made fibres C206 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, MT, NL, PL, PT, SE, SK, UK
C222 - Plastics products C222 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK
C231 - Glass C231 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK
C232 - Refractory products C232 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK
C233 - Clay building materials C233 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK
C234 - Porcelain and ceramics C234 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK
C235 - Cement, lime and plaster C235 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, MT, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK
C237 - Stone C237 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK
C239 - Abrasive products C239 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK
C241 - Iron and steel C241 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK
C244 - Non-ferrous metals C244 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK
C245 - Casting of metal C245 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK
C11 - Beverages C11 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK
C21 - Pharmaceutical products C21 AT, BE, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK
C25 - Fabricated metal products C25 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK
C26 - Computer and electronics C26 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK
C27 - Electrical equipment C27 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK
C28 - Machinery and equipment C28 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK
C29 - Motor vehicles C29 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK
C30 - Other transport equipment C30 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK
C32 - Other manufacturing C32 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK
C33 - Repair of machinery C33 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK
29/454
Annex E: T2 - Evolution of the energy cost shares

This table summarises the energy cost shares per section and branch showing the changes over time, the final level of the cost share in 2015, the average of the cost
share over the period and the maximum level reached.
Table 0-1: Evolution of the energy cost shares over time of all sectors analysed
Diff
Changes Changes Changes max-
2008- 2008- 2011- Level Max. Low. low
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2015 2011 2015 2015 Average level level level
Section C
C103 - Fruit and
vegetables 3.6% 3.5% 2.8% 2.8% 3.0% 2.8% 2.9% 2.5% -1.1% -0.8% -0.3% 2.5% 3.0% 3.6% 2.5% 1.1%
C106 - Grain products 3.8% 3.8% 3.3% 3.1% 3.3% 3.1% 3.3% 3.0% -0.8% -0.6% -0.1% 3.0% 3.3% 3.8% 3.0% 0.8%
C132 - Textiles 4.3% 6.4% 3.6% 2.5% 2.7% 2.4% 2.3% 2.1% -2.2% -1.8% -0.4% 2.1% 3.3% 6.4% 2.1% 4.3%
C161 - Sawmills 3.7% 4.1% 3.6% 4.1% 3.7% 3.6% 3.4% 3.1% -0.6% 0.4% -1.0% 3.1% 3.7% 4.1% 3.1% 1.0%
C171 - Pulp and paper 12.2% 13.0% 11.1% 11.2% 10.7% 9.9% 9.1% 8.4% -3.9% -1.1% -2.8% 8.4% 10.7% 13.0% 8.4% 4.6%
C172 - Articles of paper 3.6% 3.7% 3.1% 2.8% 3.0% 3.0% 2.7% 2.5% -1.0% -0.8% -0.3% 2.5% 3.0% 3.7% 2.5% 1.2%
C192 - Refineries 3.2% 2.4% 2.5% 2.0% 2.8% 3.1% 3.1% 3.7% 0.6% -1.2% 1.7% 3.7% 2.8% 3.7% 2.0% 1.7%
C201 - Basic chemicals 7.1% 7.7% 6.8% 7.0% 6.7% 6.7% 6.1% 5.7% -1.4% -0.1% -1.3% 5.7% 6.7% 7.7% 5.7% 2.0%
C206 - Man-made fibres 8.6% 12.4% 7.8% 7.1% 6.7% 8.5% 6.5% 6.2% -2.4% -1.6% -0.9% 6.2% 8.0% 12.4% 6.2% 6.2%
C222 - Plastics products 3.5% 3.5% 2.9% 2.9% 2.8% 2.9% 2.7% 2.6% -0.9% -0.6% -0.3% 2.6% 3.0% 3.5% 2.6% 0.9%
C231 - Glass 9.8% 10.1% 8.9% 9.1% 10.3% 10.1% 9.3% 8.2% -1.7% -0.7% -0.9% 8.2% 9.5% 10.3% 8.2% 2.1%
C232 - Refractory
products 6.9% 6.5% 6.2% 5.9% 6.5% 6.6% 5.8% 6.1% -0.8% -1.0% 0.1% 6.1% 6.3% 6.9% 5.8% 1.1%
C233 - Clay building
materials 15.4% 14.1% 11.8% 11.0% 12.4% 12.4% 11.3% 11.1% -4.3% -4.4% 0.1% 11.1% 12.4% 15.4% 11.0% 4.4%
C234 - Porcelain and
ceramics 6.0% 5.7% 4.8% 5.0% 5.3% 5.4% 5.0% 4.3% -1.7% -1.0% -0.8% 4.3% 5.2% 6.0% 4.3% 1.7%
C235 - Cement, lime and
plaster 22.1% 22.9% 22.1% 23.5% 21.4% 21.8% 20.9% 16.3% -5.8% 1.5% -7.3% 16.3% 21.4% 23.5% 16.3% 7.3%
C237 - Stone 4.8% 4.4% 3.3% 3.4% 2.6% 4.3% 3.1% 3.2% -1.5% -1.4% -0.1% 3.2% 3.6% 4.8% 2.6% 2.1%
C239 - Abrasive products 5.8% 5.3% 4.9% 4.9% 5.0% 5.2% 4.8% 5.1% -0.7% -0.9% 0.1% 5.1% 5.1% 5.8% 4.8% 1.0%
C241 - Iron and steel 9.2% 11.9% 9.5% 7.7% 8.5% 8.5% 7.3% 7.5% -1.7% -1.4% -0.3% 7.5% 8.8% 11.9% 7.3% 4.6%
30/454
C244 - Non-ferrous
metals 4.6% 6.0% 4.2% 4.0% 3.9% 4.0% 3.6% 3.5% -1.1% -0.5% -0.6% 3.5% 4.2% 6.0% 3.5% 2.5%
C245 - Casting of metal 6.4% 7.1% 6.0% 5.2% 5.4% 5.5% 5.3% 4.9% -1.4% -1.1% -0.3% 4.9% 5.7% 7.1% 4.9% 2.2%
Diff
Changes Changes Changes max-
2008- 2008- 2011- Level Max. Low. low
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2015 2011 2015 2015 Average level level level
C11 - Beverages 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.7% 2.6% 2.6% 2.5% 2.4% -0.2% 0.1% -0.2% 2.4% 2.6% 2.7% 2.4% 0.2%
C21 - Pharmaceutical
products 2.8% 1.7% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.1% -1.7% -1.6% -0.1% 1.1% 1.5% 2.8% 1.1% 1.7%
C25 - Fabricated metal
products 2.2% 2.4% 2.3% 1.9% 2.0% 2.1% 2.1% 1.9% -0.2% -0.3% 0.0% 1.9% 2.1% 2.4% 1.9% 0.5%
C26 - Computer and
electronics 0.9% 0.9% 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% -0.2% -0.2% 0.0% 0.8% 0.8% 0.9% 0.7% 0.2%
C27 - Electrical
equipment 1.1% 1.3% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.1% 0.9% -0.3% -0.2% -0.1% 0.9% 1.0% 1.3% 0.9% 0.5%
C28 - Machinery and
equipment 1.1% 1.2% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 1.0% 0.9% 0.8% -0.3% -0.2% -0.1% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 0.8% 0.4%
C29 - Motor vehicles 1.0% 1.0% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% -0.3% -0.2% -0.1% 0.7% 0.8% 1.0% 0.7% 0.3%
C30 - Other transport
equipment 1.1% 1.0% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.9% 0.7% 0.8% -0.3% -0.3% -0.1% 0.8% 0.9% 1.1% 0.7% 0.4%
C32 - Other
manufacturing 1.3% 1.4% 1.3% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% -0.3% -0.2% -0.1% 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% 1.0% 0.4%
C33 - Repair of
machinery 1.3% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.2% 1.1% 0.9% -0.4% -0.2% -0.2% 0.9% 1.1% 1.3% 0.9% 0.4%
Other sections
B - Mining and quarrying 3.4% 2.9% 2.9% 2.7% 2.8% 2.8% 2.7% 3.1% -0.3% -0.8% 0.5% 3.1% 2.9% 3.4% 2.7% 0.8%
B06 - Oil and gas 1.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% -0.9% -1.1% 0.2% 0.7% 0.7% 1.6% 0.5% 1.1%
B07 - Mining of metal
ores 15.8% 16.6% 19.7% 20.8% 19.6% 19.4% 17.7% 18.4% 2.6% 5.0% -2.4% 18.4% 18.5% 20.8% 15.8% 5.0%
B08 - Other mining 10.3% 9.8% 10.4% 10.4% 10.9% 10.2% 9.6% 9.4% -0.9% 0.1% -1.0% 9.4% 10.1% 10.9% 9.4% 1.5%
D35 - Electricity, gas and
steam 17.0% 16.8% 16.9% 16.4% 14.3% 12.3% 11.4% 11.5% -5.5% -0.6% -4.9% 11.5% 14.6% 17.0% 11.4% 5.6%
E38 - Waste management 4.0% 3.0% 3.1% 3.5% 4.2% 4.3% 4.8% 4.3% 0.3% -0.5% 0.8% 4.3% 3.9% 4.8% 3.0% 1.8%
F - Construction 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 1.4% 0.0% 0.2% -0.3% 1.4% 1.6% 1.7% 1.4% 0.3%
G - Wholesale and retail
trade 0.7% 0.8% 0.7% 0.6% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% -0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.7% 0.8% 0.6% 0.2%
H49 - Land transport 36.3% 31.0% 33.2% 40.6% 37.0% 34.4% 32.1% 27.0% -9.3% 4.3% -13.6% 27.0% 33.9% 40.6% 27.0% 13.6%
31/454
H51 - Air transport 19.5% 16.7% 21.6% 20.1% 23.3% 20.0% 24.4% 20.2% 0.7% 0.6% 0.1% 20.2% 20.7% 24.4% 16.7% 7.8%
I - Accommodation and
restaurants 3.9% 4.2% 4.7% 4.2% 4.5% 4.3% 3.7% 3.9% 0.0% 0.3% -0.3% 3.9% 4.2% 4.7% 3.7% 1.1%
32/454
Annex F: T2 & T4 - Description of E3ME

E3ME is a computer-based model of the world’s economic and energy systems and the environment. It
was originally developed through the European Commission’s research framework programmes and is
now widely used in Europe and beyond for policy assessment, for forecasting and for research purposes.
The global edition is a new version of E3ME which expands the model’s geographical coverage from 33
European countries to 59 global regions.
Recent applications of E3ME include:
• a global assessment of the economic impact of renewables for IRENA;
• contribution to the EU’s Impact Assessment of its 2030 climate and energy package;
• evaluations of the economic impact of removing fossil fuel subsidies in India and Indonesia;
• analysis of future energy systems, environmental tax reform and trade deals in East Asia;
• an assessment of the potential for green jobs in Europe;
• an economic evaluation for the EU Impact Assessment of the Energy Efficiency Directive.
This model description provides a short summary of the E3ME model. For further details, the reader is
referred to the full model manual available online from www.e3me.com.
E3ME’s basic structure and data
The structure of E3ME is based on the system of national accounts, with further linkages to energy
demand and environmental emissions. The labour market is also covered in detail, including both
voluntary and involuntary unemployment. In total, there are 33 sets of econometrically estimated
equations, also including the components of GDP (consumption, investment, international trade),
prices, energy demand and materials demand. Each equation set is disaggregated by country and by
sector.
E3ME’s historical database covers the period 1970-2015 and the model projects forward annually to
2050. The main data sources for European countries are Eurostat and the IEA, supplemented by the
OECD’s STAN database and other sources where appropriate. For regions outside Europe, additional
sources for data include the UN, OECD, World Bank, IMF, ILO and national statistics. Gaps in the data
are estimated using customised software algorithms.
The main dimensions of the model
The main dimensions of E3ME are:

• 59 countries – all major world economies, the EU28 and candidate countries plus other
countries’ economies grouped;
• 43 or 69 (Europe) industry sectors, based on standard international classifications;
• 28 or 43 (Europe) categories of household expenditure;
• 22 different users of 12 different fuel types;
• 14 types of air-borne emission (where data are available) including the six greenhouse gases
monitored under the Kyoto protocol.
The countries and sectors covered by the model are listed at the end of this document.
33/454
Standard outputs from the model
As a general model of the economy, based on the full structure of the national accounts, E3ME is
capable of producing a broad range of economic indicators. In addition, there are range of energy and
environment indicators. The following list provides a summary of the most common model outputs:
• GDP and the aggregate components of GDP (household expenditure, investment, government
expenditure and international trade);
• sectoral output and GVA, prices, trade and competitiveness effects;
• international trade by sector, origin and destination;
• consumer prices and expenditures;
• sectoral employment, unemployment, sectoral wage rates and labour supply;
• energy demand, by sector and by fuel, energy prices;
• CO2 emissions by sector and by fuel;
• other air-borne emissions;
• material demands.
This list is by no means exhaustive and the delivered outputs often depend on the requirements of the
specific application. In addition to the sectoral dimension mentioned in the list, all indicators are
produced at the national and regional level and annually over the period up to 2050.
E3ME as an E3 model
The figure below how the three components (modules) of the model - energy, environment and
economy - fit together. Each component is shown in its own box. Each data set has been constructed
by statistical offices to conform with accounting conventions. Exogenous factors coming from outside
the modelling framework are shown on the outside edge of the chart as inputs into each component.
For each region’s economy, the exogenous factors are economic policies (including tax rates, growth in
government expenditures, interest rates and exchange rates). For the energy system, the outside
factors are the world oil prices and energy policy (including regulation of the energy industries). For
the environment component, exogenous factors include policies such as reduction in SO2 emissions by
means of end-of-pipe filters from large combustion plants. The linkages between the components of the
model are shown explicitly by the arrows that indicate which values are transmitted between
components.
The economy module provides measures of economic activity and general price levels to the energy
module; the energy module provides measures of emissions of the main air pollutants to the
environment module, which in turn can give measures of damage to health and buildings. The energy
module provides detailed price levels for energy carriers distinguished in the economy module and the
overall price of energy as well as energy use in the economy.
Technological progress plays an important role in the E3ME model, affecting all three Es: economy,
energy and environment. The model’s endogenous technical progress indicators (TPIs), a function of
R&D and gross investment, appear in nine of E3ME’s econometric equation sets including trade, the
labour market and prices. Investment and R&D in new technologies also appears in the E3ME’s energy
and material demand equations to capture energy/resource savings technologies as well as pollution
34/454
abatement equipment. In addition, E3ME also captures low carbon technologies in the power sector
through the FTT power sector model. 1
E3 linkages in the E3ME model
Source: Cambridge Econometrics
Treatment of international trade
An important part of the modelling concerns international trade. E3ME solves for detailed bilateral trade
between regions (similar to a two-tier Armington model). Trade is modelled in three stages:
• econometric estimation of regions’ sectoral import demand;
• econometric estimation of regions’ bilateral imports from each partner;
• forming exports from other regions’ import demands.
Trade volumes are determined by a combination of economic activity indicators, relative prices and
technology.
The labour market
Treatment of the labour market is an area that distinguishes E3ME from other macroeconomic models.
E3ME includes econometric equation sets for employment, average working hours, wage rates and
participation rates. The first three of these are disaggregated by economic sector while participation
rates are disaggregated by gender and five-year age band.
The labour force is determined by multiplying labour market participation rates by population.
Unemployment (including both voluntary and involuntary unemployment) is determined by taking the
1 See M ercure (2012).
35/454
difference between the labour force and employment. This is typically a key variable of interest for
policy makers.
The power sector model
The power sector in E3ME is represented using a novel framework for the dynamic selection and
diffusion of innovations, initially developed by J.-F. Mercure (Mercure, 2012), called FTT:Power (Future
Technology Transformations for the Power sector). This is the first member of the FTT family of
technology diffusion models. It uses a decision-making core for investors wanting to build new electrical
capacity, facing several options. The resulting diffusion of competing technologies is constrained by a
global database of renewable and non-renewable resources (Mercure & Salas, 2012, 2013). The decision-
making core takes place by pairwise levelised cost (LCOE) comparisons, conceptually equivalent to a
binary logit model, parameterised by measured technology cost distributions. Costs include reductions
originating from learning curves, as well as increasing marginal costs of renewable natural resources (for
renewable technologies) using cost-supply curves. The diffusion of technology follows a set of coupled
non-linear differential equations, sometimes called ‘Lotka-Volterra’ or ‘replicator dynamics’, which
represent the better ability of larger or well-established industries to capture the market, and the life
expectancy of technologies. Due to learning-by-doing and increasing returns to adoption, it results in
path-dependent technology scenarios that arise from electricity sector policies. A survey of renewable
resources was carried out by Mercure & Salas (2012) for the purpose of limiting the diffusion of
technologies in FTT:Power. This database provides cost-supply curves covering 90 countries and can be
re-aggregated to various configurations of regions following the development of E3ME. It also includes a
review of non-renewable fossil and nuclear fuels. These however are not used as cost-supply curves,
since such curves would need to change as consumption progresses. Instead, a dynamic model of
resource consumption was introduced in FTT:Power, which tracks how a cost-distribution of resources is
gradually depleted. This is parameterised by the current rate of reserves to resources ratios for these
fuels, and determines a dynamic marginal cost (Mercure & Salas, 2013). FTT:Power features 24 types of
power technologies, as shown in the table below:
These use 13 types of natural resources:
36/454
Among these, the 4 non-renewable resources, uranium, coal, gas and oil, are treated with the resources
consumption model. The demand for these fuels includes that of other sectors in E3ME and can be used to
determine the cost of these fuels in scenarios of depletion.
The basic structure of FTT Power
FTT:Power determines a technology mix by region given a scenario of detailed electricity policy: carbon
prices, subsidies, feed-in tariffs and regulations by technology. Changes in the power technology mix
result in changes of production costs, reflected in the price of electricity. The model takes electricity
demand from E3ME and feeds back a price, fuel use and investment for replacements and new
generators.
Comparison with CGE models and econometric specification
E3ME is often compared to Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) models. In many ways the modelling
approaches are similar; they are used to answer similar questions and use similar inputs and outputs.
However, underlying this there are important theoretical differences between the modelling
approaches.
In a typical CGE framework, optimal behaviour is assumed, output is determined by supply-side

constraints and prices adjust fully so that all the available capacity is used. In E3ME the determination
of output comes from a post-Keynesian framework and it is possible to have spare capacity. The model
is more demand-driven and it is not assumed that prices always adjust to market clearing levels.
The differences have important practical implications, as they mean that in E3ME regulation and other
policy may lead to increases in output if they are able to draw upon spare economic capacity. This is
described in more detail in the model manual.
The econometric specification of E3ME gives the model a strong empirical grounding. E3ME uses a
system of error correction, allowing short-term dynamic (or transition) outcomes, moving towards a
37/454
long-term trend. The dynamic specification is important when considering short and medium-term
analysis (e.g. up to 2020) and rebound effects2, which are included as standard in the model’s results.
Key strengths of E3ME
In summary the key strengths of E3ME are:

• the close integration of the economy, energy systems and the environment, with two-way
linkages between each component;
• the detailed sectoral disaggregation in the model’s classifications, allowing for the analysis of
similarly detailed scenarios;
• its global coverage, while still allowing for analysis at the national level for large economies;
• the econometric approach, which provides a strong empirical basis for the model and means it
is not reliant on some of the restrictive assumptions common to CGE models;
• the econometric specification of the model, making it suitable for short and medium-term
assessment, as well as longer-term trends.
Applications of E3ME
Although E3ME can be used for forecasting, the model is more commonly used for evaluating the
impacts of an input shock through a scenario-based analysis. The shock may be either a change in
policy, a change in economic assumptions or another change to a model variable. The analysis can be
either forward looking (ex-ante) or evaluating previous developments in an ex-post manner. Scenarios
may be used either to assess policy, or to assess sensitivities to key inputs (e.g. international energy
prices).
Model-based scenario analyses often focus on changes in price because this is easy to quantify and
represent in the model structure. Examples include:
• changes in tax rates including direct, indirect, border, energy and environment taxes
• changes in international energy prices
• emission trading schemes
All of the price changes above can be represented in E3ME’s framework reasonably well, given the level
of disaggregation available. However, it is also possible to assess the effects of regulation, albeit with
an assumption about effectiveness and cost. For example, an increase in vehicle fuel-efficiency
standards could be assessed in the model with an assumption about how efficient vehicles become, and
the cost of these measures. This would be entered into the model as a higher price for cars and a
reduction in fuel consumption (all other things being equal). E3ME could then be used to determine:
• secondary effects, for example on fuel suppliers
• rebound effects3
• overall macroeconomic impacts
2 Where an initial increase in efficiency reduces demand, but this is negated in the long run as greater efficiency lowers the relative
cost and increases consumption. See Barker et al (2009).

3 In the example, the higher fuel efficiency effectively reduces the cost of motoring. In the long-run this is likely to lead to an
increase in demand, meaning some of the initial savings are lost. Barker et al (2009) demonstrate that this can be as high as 50% of
the original reduction.
38/454
Main dimensions of the E3ME model
Regions Industries Industries

(Europe) (non-Europe)
1 Belgium Crops, animals, etc Agriculture etc
2 Denmark Forestry & logging Coal
3 Germany Fishing Oil & Gas etc
4 Greece Coal Other Mining
5 Spain Oil and Gas Food, Drink & Tobacco
6 France Other mining Textiles, Clothing & Leather
7 Ireland Food, drink & tobacco Wood & Paper
8 Italy Textiles & leather Printing & Publishing
9 Luxembourg Wood & wood prods Manufactured Fuels
10 Netherlands Paper & paper prods Pharmaceuticals
11 Austria Printing & reproduction Other chemicals
12 Portugal Coke & ref petroleum Rubber & Plastics
13 Finland Other chemicals Non-Metallic Minerals
14 Sweden Pharmaceuticals Basic Metals
15 UK Rubber & plastic products Metal Goods
16 Czech Rep. Non-metallic mineral prods Mechanical Engineering
17 Estonia Basic metals Electronics
18 Cyprus Fabricated metal prods Electrical Engineering
19 Latvia Computers etc Motor Vehicles
20 Lithuania Electrical equipment Other Transport Equipment
21 Hungary Other machinery/equipment Other Manufacturing
22 Malta Motor vehicles Electricity
23 Poland Other transport equip Gas Supply
24 Slovenia Furniture; other manufacture Water Supply
25 Slovakia Machinery repair/installation Construction
26 Bulgaria Electricity Distribution
27 Romania Gas, steam & air cond. Retailing
28 Norway Water, treatment & supply Hotels & Catering
29 Switzerland Sewerage & waste Land Transport etc
30 Iceland Construction Water Transport
31 Croatia Wholesale & retail MV Air Transport
32 Turkey Wholesale excl MV Communications
33 Macedonia Retail excl MV Banking & Finance
34 USA Land transport, pipelines Insurance
35 Japan Water transport Computing Services
36 Canada Air transport Professional Services
37 Australia Warehousing Other Business Services
38 New Zealand Postal & courier activities Public Administration
39 Russian Fed. Accommodation & food serv Education
40 Rest of Annex I Publishing activities Health & Social Work
41 China Motion pic, video, television Miscellaneous Services
42 India Telecommunications Unallocated
43 Mexico Computer programming etc.
44 Brazil Financial services
45 Argentina Insurance
39/454
Main dimensions of the E3ME model
Regions Industries Industries

(Europe) (non-Europe)
46 Colombia Aux to financial services
47 Rest Latin Am. Real estate
48 Korea Imputed rents
49 Taiwan Legal, account, consult
50 Indonesia Architectural & engineering
51 Rest of ASEAN R&D
52 Rest of OPEC Advertising
53 Rest of world Other professional
54 Ukraine Rental & leasing
55 Saudi Arabia Employment activities
56 Nigeria Travel agency
57 South Africa Security & investigation, etc
58 Rest of Africa Public admin & defence
59 Africa OPEC Education
60 Human health activities
61 Residential care
62 Creative, arts, recreational
63 Sports activities
64 Membership orgs
65 Repair comp. & pers. goods
66 Other personal serv.
67 Hholds as employers
68 Extraterritorial orgs
69 Unallocated/Dwellings
40/454
Annex G: T2 - Results from decomposition of

energy costs (EU28)
Results for the EU28 at a sectoral level
Applicable to all figures that follow: Source: Own calculations
41/454
42/454
43/454
Results for the weighted-average impact across all sectors considered, at the Member State level
Applicable to all figures that follow: Source: Own calculations
44/454
45/454
Annex H: T3 – List of indicators
MS
Energy coverag Timefram
Topic Indicator Quantification Sector vector e e Source
Number of electricity only contract available Only CEER
for consumers Number HH only electricity EU28 2014
Only CEER
Dual-offers available Yes/no HH only electricity EU28 2014
Only CEER
Certified green offers available
Yes/no HH only electricity EU28 2015
Availability of non-price-financial benefit (sign- CEER
Consumer
in discounts, bonus for renewing contract, Only
choice
loyalty programs, etc.) Yes/no HH only electricity Partial 2014
Availability of non-financial benefits (home CEER
insurance, free maintenance of water boilers, Only
etc.) Yes/no HH only electricity Partial 2014
Availability of ICT-based offerings (in-house CEER
display, energy consumption feedback mobile Only
app, etc.) Yes/no HH only electricity Partial 2014
Annual switching rates, (by # of eligible meter
points for hh and eligible volume for nhh) (0
Consumer
can be the result of only one supplier) % Both Both EU28 2008-2016 CEER
engagement
Share of consumers who have never switched Only
supplier % HH only electricity Partial 2015 CEER
Only
Main reason for trying to switch retailer Description HH only electricity EU28 2010 DG Justice
Only
Main reason for not switching retailer
Description HH only electricity EU28 2010 DG Justice
General level of satisfaction with the Market Performance Indicator 2010-2013
electricity/gas industry (0-100) HH only Both Partial and 2015 CMS MPIavg
Ability of consumers to compare products or 2010-2013
services Score 0-10 HH only Both EU 28 and 2015 CMS COMPARABILITYavg
Consumer
Trust of consumers in suppliers/providers to
satisfaction
respect the rules and regulations protecting 2010-2013
consumers Score 0-10 HH only Both EU 28 and 2015 CMS TRUSTavg
Percentage of people who experienced at least 2010-2013
one problem % HH only Both EU 28 and 2015 CMS PROBLEMSperc
Percentage of people who complained after 2010-2013
having experienced at least one problem % of people with problems HH only Both EU 28 and 2015 CMS COMPLAINTS_YESperc
Satisfaction with the number of
suppliers/retailers to choose from (0-10) Score 0-10 HH only Both EU 28 2015 CMS CHOICEavg
46/454
MS
2010-2013
Perceived ease of switching
Score 0-10 HH only Both EU 28 and 2015 CMS EASE_SWITCHINGav
Only
Electricity industry ranking
Score 1-52 HH only electricity Partial 2013 CEER
Only
Electricity industry change in ranking
Absolute change in Score (1-52) HH only electricity Partial 2013 CEER
Only
Main reason for complaints
Description HH only electricity EU28 2013 DG Justice / CEER
Total annual new installed Only
New installed capacity - Additions capacity (MW) - per technology Unclear electricity EU28 2008-2016 Platts- Additions
Investment &
Investments in renewable energy - CAPEX per Only
Propensity to
type CAPEX in million € Not applicable electricity Partial 2012-2016 Eurobserver
invest
Average interest rates per
Interest rates 4 technology NA NA EU28 2007-2018 Eurostat [irt_lt_mcby_m]
Eurostat nrg_pc_204_c &
nrg_pc_205_c Eurostat,
second semester. For gas,
EUR/Kwh or EUR/MWh (also only the energy component is
Electricity retail prices per component available in PPS) Both Both EU28 2007-2016 available
Profits and
Only
growth
Monthly average whole sale prices5 EUR/Kwh or EUR/MWh Not applicable electricity EU28 6 2007-2016 Task 1
Using WS and PS01. Retail only
available for S2 in Eurostat,
Mark-up of retail price over wholesale price we only took S2 for wholesale
(Calculated as wholesale - retail price) €/MWh Both Both EU28 Up to 2017 electricity
€/kWh, see method of
Competition Expenditures on energy as share of disposable quantification previously used Calculated based on Eurostat
income by Vaasa/HEPI HH only Both EU28 2008-2015 data.
% of the current energy bill
Prices and VaasaETT_AnnualisedSavings
which could be saved by
savings via DG ENER
Savings available to consumers 7 switching supplier HH only Both EU28 2015-2016
4
Interest rates not available per technology. Using Eurostat (EMU convergence criterion series - monthly data)
5
Electricity wholesale prices (day ahead, 100% baseload). Previously called PG05
6
Excluding Cyprus and Croatia
7
Annualised average savings in percent of the current energy bill available to typical households who switched away from their local by-default contract to the cheapest offer available in April
2015. Temporary discounts and rebates were taken into account for this analysis. Prices in capital cities are used as a proxy to assess prices at the national level.
47/454
MS
Number active of suppliers Total number Both Both EU28 2008-2015 CEER
EU28
(capital
Number of offers per supplier Total number of offers Unclear Both cities) 2014-2015 MMR underlying data
Share out of total of each type
of offer (fixed, variable, green,
Number of offers per supplier spot-based) Unclear Both EU28 2015 MMR underlying data
Market shares of three largest firms on market 8 Consumed volumes Both Both EU28 2008-2015 CEER.
Retailer
2013-2016
choice
(hh) /
Number of suppliers with more than 5% market 2015-2016
share 9 Number Both Both EU28 (nhh) CEER
Market concentration (Herfindahl-Hirschman
Index, HHI) HHI Both Both Partial 2015-2016 CEER
Netto number of new active suppliers Number of suppliers Both Both EU29 2009-2016 Calculated (change per year)
Calculated (% change per
Change in netto number of active suppliers % Both Both EU30 2009-2017 year)
Existence of price regulaton Yes/No Both Both EU28 2008-2015 CEER
Existence of price regulation dropped in Year Both Both EU28 2008-2016 Calculated based on CEER
Year since removal Number of years since removal Unclear Both EU28 2017 Calculated based on CEER
Description of the type of price Where
Type of price regulation I regulation Unclear Both relevant 2008-2015 CEER
Description of the type of price Where
Type of price regulation II regulation Unclear Both relevant 2008-2015 CEER
Regulated
% of total consumers covered Where
prices
Share of consumers with regulated prices by regulated price10 Both Both relevant 2008-2015 Calculated based on CEER
Volume of the consumption of consumers with Where
regulated prices Volume in TWh Both Both relevant 2008-2015 CEER
2008-2015
Share of the consumption of regulated Where (hh), 2013-
consumers out of total consumption % for share of consumption Both Both relevant 2015 (nhh) CEER
Share of households that receive social tariffs % HH only Both EU28 2008-2015 CEER
Vulnerable
Inability to keep home adequately warm % HH only Merged EU28 2008-2016 Eurostat - ilc_mdes01
consumers
Arrears on utility bills % HH only Merged EU28 2008-2016 Eurostat - ilc_mdes07
8 Households by metering points and non-households by volume, combined by volume

9
Data on the number of suppliers with market shares >5% is only available for the electricity market from 2013 onwards. Data is not available on the number of suppliers with markets shares
>5% for the gas market
10 Including social tariff, transitory measures, universal service, default supplier or other mechanisms with price regulation
48/454
MS
Number of households on social tariffs Number HH only Both EU28 2008-2015 CEER
Growth - Gross domestic product at market
prices GDP (Million €, current prices) Merged Merged EU28 2008 -2017 Eurostat - tec00001
Government debt (%) of GDP Merged Merged EU28 2008 -2017 Eurostat - teina225
% of gross electricity Only
Electricity generated from renewable sources consumption Merged electricity EU28 2008 -2016 Eurostat - tsdcc330
Only
Tariff deficits Retail competition Number of retailers Merged electricity EU28 2008 -2015 DB CEER
WB database: Worldwide
Governance Indicators -
Retail competition11 Index Merged Merged EU28 2008 -2016 GE.EST
WB database: Worldwide
Governance Indicators -
Regulatory Quality: Estimate 12 Index Merged Merged EU28 2008 -2016 RQ.EST
11
Government Effectiveness captures perceptions of the quality of public services, the quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from political pressures, the quality of
policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government's commitment to such policies. Estimate gives the country's score on the aggregate indicator, in units of a
standard normal distribution, i.e. ranging from approximately -2.5 to 2.5.
12
Regulatory Quality captures perceptions of the ability of the government to formulate and implement sound policies and regulations that permit and promote private sector development.
Estimate gives the country's score on the aggregate indicator, in units of a standard normal distribution, i.e. ranging from approximately -2.5 to 2.5.
49/454
Annex I: T3 - Country factsheets
1 Factsheet: Austria
This factsheet presents the findings for Austria for the ‘Study on energy prices, costs and subsidies’.
The indicators presented here are based on the database compiled for the study and includes data up
to 2016. The text, on the other hand, presents current developments at national level. The factsheet
has been reviewed by an NRA representative and data has been adjusted accordingly.
1.1 Household Price Regulation in Austria
Austria had no energy price regulation for households in the period assessed.
Austria liberalized its electricity and gas markets in 2001 and 2002 respectively 13.
1.1.1 Selected aspects of competition

On the electricity market (for household consumers), the three largest suppliers have had over 55% of
the market shares over the last years with a sustained slight decrease. The number of active suppliers
in the electricity market remained roughly constant, although local suppliers expanded beyond their
historical areas. 14 The gas market is more concentrated, with the three largest suppliers covering above
70% of the market in 2016. However, increasingly accurate data 14 indicates a sharp decrease in this
share (from 85% in 2009) as the number of active suppliers almost doubled over the investigated time
period.
Figure 1: Number of suppliers and market shares in Austria
13
E-Control. Freier Strom- und Gasmarkt. Information available at: https://www.e-
control.at/konsumenten/energiemarkt
14
Private communication with the NRA (2018)
50/454
Note: Data on the number of suppliers with market shares >5% is only available for the electricity
market from 2013 onwards. Data is not available on the number of suppliers with markets shares >5%
for the gas market
Source: CEER data
Consumer engagement and expenditures on energy
The figures below show the annual switching rates 15 in households for both electricity and gas, which
have steadily increased since 2008. In the gas market this seems logical, as the number of suppliers
doubled (see Figure 1) over the investigated time period. On the electricity market, increased
competition between nationwide suppliers (alternative and local historical incumbents) and collective
switching actions explain the high switching rates despite the number of suppliers remaining constant. 14
Figure 2 Annual switching rates for households in Austria
Source: CEER data
The consortium has calculated expenditures on gas and electricity as share of disposable income for
households in the middle consumption bands 16 (for electricity, those who consume between 2.5 MWh
and 5 MWh per year and for gas those who consume between 20GJ and 200 GJ per year).17 The indicator
shows the significance of the total energy bill compared to the disposable income and is therefore a
proxy to understand the level and evolution of the affordability of energy in Austria. For both
electricity and gas, an increase in the share of the respective expenditures in disposable income can be
observed between 2009 and 2013 (with shares reverting to 2008 levels from 2014 onwards). A likely
15
Switching is defined as the voluntary action by which a customer changes his supplier
16 The data available on gas and electricity prices is provided per consumption band. This report shows the middle
consumption bands for easier visualisation: DC for the electricity market for household consumers (2.5 MWh – 5 MWh
per year), D2 for the gas market for household consumers (20 GJ – 200 DJ per year), ID for the electricity market for
non-household consumers (2 GWh – 20 GWh per year) and I3 for the gas market for non-household consumers (10 TJ
– 100 TJ per year)
17
The expenditures on energy where calculated by multiplying the energy consumption per household by its price and
divide this by the disposable income per household.
51/454
explanation for this temporary hike is the financial crisis that reached Europe in 2009 and lowered
disposable income especially for the households in the middle consumption bands. Electricity and gas
consumption tends to be quite income inelastic (i.e. consumption remained constant over the period
with decreased disposable income), which makes for a plausible explanation of the share increases
observed between 2009 and 2013 in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Expenditures on gas and electricity as share of disposable income for households in Austria (for middle
consumption bands DC and D2) using PPS prices18
Note: Average yearly household expenditures may deviate with other sources due to factors such as
differences between numbers of households and actual connection points
Source: Own calculations 19 based on Eurostat
Competition performance and mark-ups
The alignment between the energy component of retail prices and wholesale prices over time is a proxy
for the efficiency of retail competition. Therefore, competition performance was assessed by
comparing the evolution of the energy component of retail prices to those observed in the wholesale
prices. Hereby, the energy and supply component has steadily decreased in price since peaking in 2011
(now between 55-60 EUR/MWh). It is interesting to see that, for Austria, this has compensated
increases in the tax and levies component, so that retail electricity prices remained stable since 2012.
The same trend of a decreasing energy and supply component price since a peak in 2012 can be
observed in the gas retail price, as confirmed by NRA data.20
18 Purchasing Power Parity (PPS) is an artificial currency used to compare prices across countries, taking into account
the differences in purchasing power between countries (Eurostat statistics explained, 2014).
19
Energy expenditures as share of disposable income have been calculated using the electricity and gas retail prices
and the average energy consumptions per household (calculated using the number of households per country and the
country energy consumption for the household sector). This was further compared to the household disposable income
as reported by Eurostat.
20
E-Control (2017). Marktbericht 2017.
52/454
Figure 4 Retail household price for middle consumption bands (DC and D2) and wholesale prices in Austria
Note that data is not available for the gas market in 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2016. Also, there is no data
available for the taxes and levies component and the network component for the gas market.
Source: Eurostat (components of the electricity retail price), EC ad-hoc data (energy and supply component of the
gas retail price)21 and EMOS (wholesale price)
The competition performance section also assesses gross margins made by suppliers by calculating
mark-ups. Mark-ups for the retail markets are calculated as the differences between the wholesale
price and retail energy price component.22 The figures below show the mark-ups along with the
wholesale price.
21
Eurostat has data available on gas prices; however not for the energy and supply component.
22
ACER/CEER (2015), Annual Report on the Results of Monitoring the Internal Electricity and Natural Gas Markets in
2014
53/454
Figure 5 Mark-ups for Austria, middle consumption bands (DC and D2)
Note that data is not available for the gas market in 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2016
Note: Differences in mark-ups to other sources may arise due to differences such as the consideration
of supplier procurement strategies, forward prices, and the energy price data used.
gas retail price) and EMOS (wholesale price). Differences in mark-ups to other sources may arise due to differences
such as the consideration of supplier procurement strategies, forward prices, and the energy price data used.
After running a deficit in 2008, mark-ups for electricity bounced back to 24 EUR/MWh in 2010 and
increased steadily per year until peaking at 38 EUR/MWh in 2013. Ever since, the mark-up has
decreased with wholesale prices stabilizing at around 35 EUR/MWh and the energy and supply
component of the retail price falling steadily in value. On the gas market, mark-ups exhibit positive
growth throughout the years, although the data is limited. Between 2010 and 2012 this was mainly due
to the energy and supply component of retail prices increasing marginally more than the wholesale
price. Since 2014, however, it is due to wholesale prices decreasing faster relative to the rather stable
energy and supply component of retail prices. The regulator indicates that potential savings from
switching suppliers have increased correspondingly in the last years to several hundreds of €/year. 23
1.1.2 Energy poverty

The share of the population unable to keep their home adequality warm in Austria is decreasing over
time, as can be seen by the diagram below. However, the most recent year of investigation (2016)
shows a slight reverse of this trend. Given that these variables were rather volatile over the
investigated time period, it is not unreasonable to assume that future years will deviate again from this
direction (and follow the overall decreasing trend). On the other hand, there is no visible trend for the
23
54/454
share of the population with arrears on their utility bills. The NRA presents a more detailed analysis on
energy poverty24, although only for 2014, when 3.1% of Austrian households were energy-poor (with
high energy expenditures and low incomes).
Figure 6 Electricity price components for Band DC, the inability to keep home adequately warm and arrears on
utility bills in Austria
Source: Eurostat
1.1.3 Quality of services

Consumer satisfaction and consumer choice are areas identified for the assessment of the evolution of
the quality of service.
Consumer satisfaction
Over the period of investigation, the electricity sector has seen a significant rise in consumer
satisfaction, up 12 points (on a 100-point scale) between 2010 and 2015. The percentage of people
experiencing a problem with services also steadily decreased to below 5% (down from 11% in 2010).
24
55/454
Consumer satisfaction on the gas market followed roughly the same itinerary. The incidence of
problems experienced with gas sector services is even lower (under 4%) than with electricity sector
services. In total, problem incidence in the gas sector was halved over the investigated period.
Figure 7 General level of satisfaction with the industry and the percentage of people who experienced at least
one problem in Austria for households
Source: EC – DG Justice25
Figure 8 Ability of consumers to compare products or services26, trust of consumers in suppliers 27 and perceived
ease of switching28 in Austria
Source: EC – DG Justice
25
Note that from 2013 onwards, the survey was carried out every other year.
26
DG Justice survey: The functioning of retail electricity markets for consumers in the EU. Question: “I can choose from
a sufficient number of electricity providers?”
27
DG Justice survey: The functioning of retail electricity markets for consumers in the EU. Question: “In your opinion,
do consumers trust electricity suppliers with respect to the rules and regulations protecting consumers?”
28 DG Justice survey: The functioning of retail electricity markets for consumers in the EU. Question: “Which of the
following best reflects your experience of switching?” Average of three answers (easy, average, difficult)
56/454
As can be seen in Figure 8, ability of consumers to compare products or services has increased in both
markets, probably owing to the steadily increasing number of supplier options (and the resulting market
opportunity for entrepreneurs to offer comparison tools). Overall trust of consumers in suppliers to
respect rules and regulations protecting consumers also increased steadily (and more starkly in recent
years). Perceived ease of switching is high and stable in both markets but has seen a slight decrease in
the electricity market from 2011-2015.
Consumer choice
The table below provides an overview of key indicators regarding consumer choice. Austria offers a
wide range of tools to foster consumer choice, which qualifies it as a highly developed market in that
regard (especially since it is also counting with modern ICT-based offerings).
Table 1-1 Consumer choice in Austria (electricity, households)
Answer
Dual-offers (electricity and gas combined) available in 2014 Yes
Certified green offers available in 2015 Yes
Availability of non-price-financial benefit in 2014 (sign-in discounts, bonus for renewing contract, loyalty
Yes
programs, etc.)
Availability of non-financial benefits in 2014 (home insurance, free maintenance of water boilers, etc.) Yes
Availability of ICT-based offerings in 2014 (in-house display, energy consumption feedback mobile app,
Yes
etc.)
Note that “-“ indicates missing data
Source: ACER/CEER (2015)
The potential savings from switching suppliers in Austria increased from 2015 to 2016 as indicated
below. This is corroborated by the NRA, which indicates a rising trend in savings potential for
households, both for gas and electricity since 2012. 29
Figure 9 Percentage of the current electricity bill which could be saved by switching supplier in Austria
Note: Savings may include one-time benefits such as sign-in bonuses

Source: VaasaETT (2016)
The diagrams below show the type of offers available for electricity and gas, most of which are fixed.
29
57/454
Figure 10 Type of offers for households in Austria
Note: Dynamic price contracts are a type of variable contract but presented separately.
Source: ACER/CEER (2015). Spot-based contracts are a type of variable contract but presented separately.
1.2 Non-Household Price Regulation in Austria
Austria had no energy price regulation for non-households in the period assessed.
The liberalization of Austrian electricity and gas markets for large consumers was effective already in
1999 and 2000, respectively, before that for small consumers 30.
1.2.1 Selected aspects of competition (mark-ups)

The alignment between the energy component of (industry) retail prices and wholesale prices over time
is also a proxy for the efficiency of retail competition. Therefore, competition performance was
assessed by comparing the evolution of the energy component of the retail prices to those observed in
the wholesale prices. Wholesale as well as retail prices (for non-household consumers) on the
electricity market fell steadily over the investigated time period, with wholesale prices stabilizing from
2014 onwards. The energy and supply component of the retail price also decreased yearly between
2009-2016. For the gas market, wholesale prices and the energy and supply component roughly followed
the same development path (peaking between 2012-2013, decreasing from 2014 onwards 31).
30
For electricity, E-Control (2002). Liberalisierung und Strompreisentwicklung - Liberalisierung und
Strompreisentwicklung.
For gas, Peter Köberl (2001). Liberalisierung des Erdgasmarktes. Information available at:
http://www.diglib.tugraz.at/download.php?id=4e81cf45cbfcc&location=browse
31
This is corroborated by the NRA from 2013 on. E-Control (2017). Marktbericht 2017.
58/454
Figure 11 Industry retail price components for middle bands (ID and I3) and wholesale prices in Austria
gas retail price) and EMOS (wholesale price)
The competition performance section also assesses profits made by suppliers by calculating mark-ups.
Mark-ups for the retail markets are calculated as the differences between the wholesale price and
retail energy price component.32 The figures below show the mark-ups along with the wholesale price.
For the electricity market, (industry) retail mark-ups fell to 0 EUR/MWh in 2016 after a period of
relative stability around 18 EUR/MWh between 2010 and 2015. Reason for the mark-up to vanish is the
stabilization of wholesale prices paired with the continued fall of the energy and supply component of
the retail price. In the gas market, mark-ups have remained stable at 5-6 EUR/MWh since 2012, with
both the wholesale price and the energy component of the retail price following the same itinerary.
32
2014
59/454
Figure 12 Mark-ups for Austria, middle consumption bands (ID and I3)
Note that data is not available for the gas market in 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2016.
1.3 Tariff deficit in Austria
Austria had no tariff deficit between 2008 and 2016.
2 Factsheet: Belgium
This factsheet presents the findings for Belgium for the ‘Study on energy prices, costs and subsidies’.
2.1 Household Price Regulation in Belgium
60/454
Belgium still has energy price regulation for households in place due to the share of households
with social tariffs (which is above 5%).
During the considered period 2008-2016, prices for supply of gas and electricity to households were not
regulated in Belgium, except for vulnerable consumers (social tariffs) and dropped consumers. The
Belgian law of 8 January 2012 (amended by the law of 29 March 2012) introduced an extensive price
monitoring for electricity and gas supply prices to households. This monitoring had initially been
introduced until end 2014, and was prolonged until end 2017, when it ceased to exist.
From April 2012 until December 2012, electricity and gas retailers were by that law forbidden to
increase their prices of contracts for existing products with variable prices. Contracts with fixed prices
or for new products were not subject to this legal measure, and retailers could hence continue to adapt
their prices for new contracts or products. As of January 2013, retailers were again allowed to adapt
their variable electricity and gas prices for supply to households, but only quarterly (while beforehand
they could adapt their prices monthly). New price formulas and parameters (e.g. references to specific
wholesale market prices) had to be notified to the national energy regulator and had to comply with
the provisions of the Royal Decree of 21 December 2012. The national energy regulator was legally
empowered to control ex post whether the changes in price formulas were effectively compliant with
the legislation, and whether the price increases were justified, amongst others based on a comparison
between the actual Belgian retail prices and the average prices in the CWE market (BE, NL, LU, FR and
DE). As the wholesale prices are in this integrated supranational market converging to a large extent,
the Belgian legislator and regulator assume that the commodity retail prices for electricity and gas
should also converge. If the actual retail prices in Belgium were higher than the CWE average, the
national energy regulator was legally empowered to enter into “negotiations” with the concerned
retailers in view of assessing their justification for higher retail prices in Belgium and, if appropriate,
obliging them to reduce their commodity prices to the average CWE level.
Figure 1 shows the share of household consumers and related overall consumption that were in 2008-
2016 covered by this extensive price monitoring and the social tariffs. Due to the share of household
consumers on social tariffs in Belgium, in the cross-country report on energy prices, costs and subsidies,
the country is still classified as having low shares of price regulation for households as of 2016.
61/454
Figure 13 Household price regulation in Belgium from 2008 to 2016
Source: CEER data

No year for the end of price regulation is indicated due to the share of population on social tariffs
The current social tariff regulation for electricity and gas has been introduced by two Ministerial
Decrees of 30 March 2007 (respectively for electricity and gas) and by the Royal Decree of 25 June
2009. Vulnerable low-income households that benefit from a specific financial allowance granted by
national or municipal authorities, are eligible for a social gas and electricity tariff. The actual social
electricity and gas tariff levels are twice a year determined by the national energy regulator for the
next period of 6 months, on the basis of the lowest commodity price which is at that moment offered
by the retailers. The social tariff levels are hence lower than the price level of almost all other supply
contracts, but the difference is not predetermined and depends on actual market practices. There is
also no direct relation between the social tariff and the wholesale price; the effective level depends on
the price setting of the most competitive retailer. The overall net impact of the social tariff on the
retailers’ margins is recovered via a surcharge on the electricity and gas bills determined and collected
by the national energy regulator; the retailers can claim from the national energy regulator
reimbursement of the net costs (net impact on their revenues) that they incur by granting social tariffs.
At present about 9% of the Belgian households are benefiting of social electricity and gas tariffs.
Regulated prices also apply for electricity or gas supply to non-protected households that have been
dropped by their commercial supplier due to unpaid bills. In these cases, distribution grid operators act
as supplier of last resort and have to apply maximum prices which are twice a year determined by the
national energy regulator.
62/454
Figure 14 Household social tariffs in Belgium
Source: CEER data

The number of active suppliers on the Belgian electricity and gas retail market has strongly increased
since the liberalisation, but due to hard competition and low margins, a consolidation is taking place
since a few years (e.g. takeover of Lampiris by TOTAL in June 2016, ENI Gas & Power Belgium by ENECO
in July 2017, Direct Energy - Poweo in April 2018 by TOTAL, and others). For both electricity and gas
(household market segment), we see that the three largest suppliers have consistently lost market
share over the last years. This is mainly due to the heavily decreasing market share of the major
incumbent Engie-Electrabel.
Figure 15: Number of suppliers and market shares in Belgium
Note that data on the number of active suppliers is not available prior to 2011
Source: CEER data
63/454
The figures below show the annual switching rates 33 of households for both electricity and gas. The
switching rates have in Belgium gradually increased and have reached very high levels compared to
most other EU countries. There are several large multinational energy companies and new local
operators that entered the Belgian retail market. Customers have a large choice, both in terms of
number of suppliers and in terms of contract and product types, and they are becoming increasingly
aware of the potential benefits of switching energy supplier. Consumer awareness has been raised by
information campaigns launched by energy regulators and consumer associations, as well as by
commercial actions of retailers. Group purchases resulting in collective switching schemes have also
contributed to enhancing consumers’ awareness and price competition on the retail market. The price
pressure on retailers resulting from actions from competitors and consumers seems to have had a larger
effect than the above mentioned price monitoring. The high switching rates have also led to a gradually
decreasing concentration on the Belgian electricity and gas retail markets.
Figure 16 Annual switching rates for households in Belgium
No data available in 2008 and 2015 (electricity) and 2008, 2012 and 2013 (gas)
Source: CEER data
Regarding the impact of retail electricity and gas prices on household energy expenditures, the
consortium has calculated expenditures on gas and electricity as share of disposable income of
households.34 The indicator shows the significance of the total energy bill compared to the disposable
income and is therefore a proxy to understand the level and evolution of the affordability of electricity
and gas in Belgium. We notice that notwithstanding increasing grid costs and fees/surcharges (in
particular for renewable energy), the share of the overall electricity and gas cost in disposable income
has on average not increased (except in 2016 for electricity, which is due to the introduction in the
Flemish region of a new levy to recover accumulated debts for renewable energy support). This
evolution can be explained by decreasing energy consumption (resulting from energy efficiency
33
34
The expenditures on energy were calculated by multiplying the energy consumption per household by its price and
64/454
measures) and in general decreasing wholesale prices during the considered period. The retail margins
for both electricity and gas were during that period also under pressure, mainly due to strong
competition on the Belgian market (high switching rates) and possibly also due to the price monitoring
implemented in 2012. Although the national bank of Belgium (NBB) and the national energy regulator
(CREG) have both monitored and evaluated the impact of the monitoring mechanism, its actual effect
on the affordability of electricity and gas for households is rather unclear.
Figure 17: Expenditures on gas and electricity as share of disposable income for households in Belgium (for
middle consumption bands DC and D2)
prices. For Belgium, we notice that the electricity commodity price component per MWh has been
relatively stable during the considered period, while taxes/fees and grid costs were gradually
increasing. In 2014 and 2015, taxes were lower due to a temporary measure to reduce the VAT rate
from 21 to 6% (from 1 April 2014 to 31 August 2015). The gas price component has been more volatile,
which is linked to the price evolutions on the global gas market. Further analysis might be needed to
gain a better understanding of the drivers behind the changes in the retail market prices.
35
65/454
Figure 18 Retail household price for middle consumption bands (DC and D2) and wholesale prices in Belgium
No data available for the energy and supply component of the gas retail price in 2009, 2011, 2013 and
2016. Also, there is no data available for the taxes and levies component and the network component
for the gas market.
The competition performance section also assesses the gross margins achieved by suppliers by
calculating mark-ups. Mark-ups for the retail markets are calculated as the differences between the
wholesale price and retail energy price component.37 The figures below show the mark-ups along with
the wholesale prices. We notice that the retail margins for electricity have more or less remained
stable during the considered period; the introduction of price monitoring in 2012 has apparently had no
visible impact on the margins. When retail margins are compared at international level, the size of the
considered markets should also be taken into account. The Belgian electricity and gas retail market is
de facto split up in 3 regional markets, where different legislation and regulation apply. For this
reason, the fixed costs are for retailers in Belgium higher than in most other EU retail markets. The
sharp price competition and resulting ‘low’ margins on the Belgian retail markets lead to market
consolidation on the one hand (see supra); on the other hand, a few suppliers had to stop their supply
activities in June 2018 due to financial difficulties.
36
37
2014
66/454
Figure 19 Mark-ups for Belgium, band DC (electricity consumption between 2 500 kWh and 5 000 kWh) and band
D2 (gas consumption between 20 GJ and 200 GJ)
2016
Source: Eurostat, EMOS, EC ad-hoc data

The number of consumers in Belgium who are potentially suffering from energy poverty has slightly
decreased since 2011, as can be seen on the diagram below showing the share of the population with
arrears on their utility bills and unable to keep their home adequality warm. This positive evolution
might be linked to the fact that the share of the electricity and gas costs in the overall household
expenditures has until 2015 slightly decreased. During the considered period, the number of consumers
who benefit from social tariffs has increased; this might also have contributed to reducing the burden
of energy bills on the households.
According to the Energy Poverty Barometer (2017),38 14.5% of Belgian households devoted in 2015 too
high a share of their income to energy expenditure. A further 4% of households restricted their energy
consumption. Households with the lowest incomes, tenants, single-person households, especially
women living alone and aged 65 or more, and single-parent families were the most affected. As the
social tariffs apply to ‘only’ 9% of the Belgian households, this analysis suggests that not all households
in energy poverty benefit from this measure.
Figure 20: Electricity price components for Band DC, the inability to keep home adequately warm and arrears
on utility bills in Belgium
38The Energy Poverty Barometer (2017), Bart Delbeke and Jill Coene, University Antwerp - Sandrine
Meyer, University Brussels
67/454
Source: Eurostat

We notice that during the considered period, the number of problems encountered by consumers has
decreased and their overall satisfaction level has significantly increased. The dynamic evolution of the
Belgian retail market seems hence to have had a positive impact on the consumer satisfaction.
Figure 21 General level of satisfaction of households with the energy supply industry and the percentage of
people who experienced at least one problem in Belgium
39
68/454
Figure 22 Ability of consumers to compare products or services, trust of consumers in suppliers and perceived
ease of switching in Belgium
Consumer choice
The table below provides an overview of key indicators regarding consumer choice. We notice in
general that energy retailers have in Belgium become very innovative in their offerings to consumers;
most suppliers offer both electricity and gas and have several types of supply contracts (fixed or
variable prices, 100% renewable energy or market mix, optional additional services related to energy
efficiency, etc.). Other service providers (e.g. aggregators) are also active on the Belgian market, but
mainly in the industrial and tertiary sectors; as households are not yet equipped with smart meters, the
demand response potential in this market segment cannot yet be fully deployed.
Table 2-1 Consumer choice in Belgium (electricity, households)
Answer
Dual-offers available in 2014 Yes
Yes
programs, etc.)
Availability of non-financial benefits in 2014 (home insurance, free maintenance of water boilers, etc.) No
Yes
etc.)
The next figure shows the potential savings by switching energy supplier in Belgium. This is a
theoretical estimate based on a comparison between the highest and lowest price offerings at a certain
moment. In reality, price comparisons are more complex as prices relate to different contract types
(e.g. fixed versus variable prices) and products (e.g. renewable energy-based electricity versus grey
electricity).
69/454
Figure 23 Percentage of the current electricity bill which could be saved by switching supplier in Belgium

The diagrams below show the type of supply contracts for electricity and gas, that were applied in
2015. At that moment, most electricity contracts (60%) were based on fixed prices, while the majority
of the gas contracts were based on variable prices, linked to average wholesale prices. However, the
situation for gas was reversed in 2016.40 Dynamic pricing in Belgium was already implemented in the
household market segment in 2013 but was not representative according to the ACER/CEER data.
Figure 24 Type of offers for households in Belgium
Source: ACER/CEER (2015). Spot-based offers are a special type of variable offers and are indicated separately.
2.2 Non-Household Price Regulation in Belgium
Belgium had no energy price regulation for non-households in the period assessed. Belgium
applied price monitoring to SMEs since 2012 (phased out in 2017), but it is less than 5% of
consumers.
During the considered period 2008-2016, prices for supply of gas and electricity to non-residential
consumers in Belgium were not regulated. The extensive price monitoring which was been introduced in
April 2012 by the Belgian law of 8 January 2012 (see supra) also applied to professional end-users (SMEs)
40
Private communication with the national energy regulator (2018).
70/454
with a maximum annual consumption of respectively 50 MWh electricity or 100 MWh gas taken off from
the network. This extensive price monitoring has been abolished in December 2017.

The alignment between the energy component of (non-household) retail prices and wholesale prices
over time is also a proxy for the efficiency of retail competition. Therefore, competition performance
was assessed by comparing the evolution of the energy component of the retail prices to those observed
in the wholesale prices. We notice that, as a consequence of the hard price competition on the Belgian
retail market, the commodity retail price level has gradually decreased from 2009 to 2016,
notwithstanding a rather stable wholesale price. For gas, the retail price seems to have more closely
followed the wholesale price. There is no visible impact of the implementation of the extensive retail
price monitoring as of April 2012.
Figure 25 Industry retail energy component and wholesale prices in Belgium
2016
The competition performance section also assesses the gross margins achieved by suppliers by
calculating mark-ups. Mark-ups for the retail markets are calculated as the differences between the
wholesale price and retail energy price component.41 The figures below show the mark-ups along with
the wholesale price. We notice that the gross margins have in this market segment gradually decreased
since 2009, both for gas and for electricity. The low profitability of some suppliers on the Belgian
electricity and gas retail markets is leading to a consolidation (see supra).
41
2014
71/454
Figure 26 Mark-ups for Belgium, band ID (electricity consumption between 2 000 MWh and 20 000 MWh) and
band I3 (gas consumption between 10 000 GJ and 100 000 GJ)
2016
2.3 Tariff deficit in Belgium
Belgium had no tariff deficit between 2008 and 2016.
3 Factsheet: Bulgaria
This factsheet presents the findings for Bulgaria for the ‘Study on energy prices, costs and subsidies’.
3.1 Household Price Regulation in Bulgaria
72/454
Bulgaria still has energy price regulation for households in place, both for electricity and gas.
Electricity prices were liberalised in 2013 except for the low voltage band (which remains
regulated and represents most of the household consumers). Gas prices are regulated for 100%
of the consumers.
The Bulgarian Energy Act was amended in July 2012 to comply with the Directives 2009/72/EC42 and
2009/73/EC43, concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and gas market
respectively.44 The Renewable Energy Act was amended in 2013 to abolish the “green surcharge for
transit”, to introduce a levy for solar and wind power production and amend the limitation on the
volume of electricity that could be purchased at the feed-in-tariff (production above the defined
threshold would be purchased at the regulated retail price).45
Retail prices for households are, in nominal terms, by far the lowest in the EU and did not change much
between 2008 and 2012. 46 Electricity prices were liberalised in 2013 apart from the low voltage band
which remained regulated.47 The Bulgarian Energy and Water Regulatory Commission (EWRC) set the
consumers prices annually, for each of the three main suppliers and the state-owned NEK.48 EWRC in
December 2015 kept the price cap for transactions on the balancing energy market for upward
regulation at 202 BGN/ MWh (103.3 €/MWh), while the price cap for transactions in the balancing
energy market for downward regulation was set at 0 BGN/MWh.49 The vast majority of consumers are in
the low voltage band, as can be seen by the figure below, since 98% of the consumers had regulated
price in 2013. However, since 2016 household and small non-household consumers may switch suppliers
and choose between regulated and deregulated prices.Error! Bookmark not defined.
Both electricity and gas market prices are regulated for the household consumers as shown in Figure 27.
EWRC sets the annual price cap for the sale of natural gas. 50 The consumption of both markets is rather
stable, with electricity fluctuating between 10 and 10.9 TWh and for the gas market fluctuating
between 0.4 and 0.7 TWh.
Figure 27: Household price regulation in Bulgaria from 2008 to 2016
42
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009L0072&from=EN
43
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:211:0094:0136:en:PDF
44
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/2014_energy_market_en_0.pdf
45
Ibid.
46
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/economic_paper/2014/pdf/ecp534_en.pdf
47
48
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/2-523-
7911?bhcp=1&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)#co_anchor_a848774
49
https://www.ceer.eu/documents/104400/5988265/C17_NR_Bulgaria-EN.pdf/6050abe3-d557-c506-d340-
35f1af8d9ceb
50
https://www.ceer.eu/eer_publications/national_reports/national_reporting_2014/-
/document_library_display/Jon2qNF040hb/view_file/3737881?_110_INSTANCE_Jon2qNF040hb_redirect=https%3A%
2F%2Fwww.ceer.eu%2Feer_publications%2Fnational_reports%2Fnational_reporting_2014%3Fp_p_id%3D110_INSTA
NCE_Jon2qNF040hb%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_state%3Dnormal%26p_p_mode%3Dview%26p_p_col_id%3Dcol
umn-1%26p_p_col_pos%3D6%26p_p_col_count%3D8
73/454
Source: CEER data
There are no social tariffs for household consumers in Bulgaria.

The electricity supply for households is dominated by the Bulgarian Energy Holding and its subsidiary
Natsionalna Elektricheska Kompania EAD (NEK), and in total three suppliers control almost the whole
market. Data from the Bulgarian NRA suggests that the market share of the three largest suppliers has
decreased from 95% in 2015 to less than 85% in 2016, but this is due to the non-households segment. 51
From 2016 on households are able to switch suppliers, which led to the significant increase in
electricity suppliers in that year. Although this led to only over 900 customers switching in that year,
this may increase market competition for the household segment in the future.
Figure 3 indicates that the level of competition on the gas market is slightly higher. However, the
number of household customers was very low in 2015, and the segment represented only 2.28% of the
national gas consumption.52
51
52
35f1af8d9ceb
74/454
Figure 28: Number of suppliers and market shares in Bulgaria
No data is available on the number of suppliers prior to 2011. No data is available on the number of
suppliers with more than 5% market share before 2013. On the gas market, data is only available for
the market shares of the three largest suppliers in 2016
Source: CEER data
The figure below shows the annual switching rates 53 in households for the electricity market, which is
almost zero. Although electricity consumers are eligible to switch supplier, no switching is observed
since the prices are regulated and there are no incentives for switching supplier since there is no
financial benefit for them if they switch supplier. Regulated prices also discourages investors from
entering the Bulgarian energy market. 54
53
54
75/454
Figure 29 Annual switching rates for households in Bulgaria
No data available regarding gas

switching rates for households in
builgaria
Note that switching rates equalled zero between 2008 and 2010
Source: CEER data
Regarding the impact of regulated prices on household energy expenditures, the consortium has
calculated expenditures on gas and electricity as share of disposable income for households in the
middle consumption bands 55 (for electricity, those who consume between 2.5 MWh and 5 MWh per year
and for gas those who consume between 20GJ and 200 GJ per year).56 The indicator shows the
significance of the total energy bill compared to the disposable income and is therefore a proxy to
understand the level and evolution of the affordability of energy in Bulgaria. Even though electricity
prices are relatively low in Bulgaria, disposable incomes are also significantly lower than the EU-28
average. Due to this, a relative large share of the disposable income is spent on electricity in absolute
terms. Over time, the expenditures on electricity as share of disposable income follows the opposite
trend of the GDP per capita of the country: when an increase in the GDP per capita is observed, a
reduction in the expenditures on electricity as share of disposable income is observed. The only
exception is 2015. 57 The expenditures on gas are far less significant than the expenditures on electricity
(less than 1% per year), as few households are connected to the gas network. 58 Nevertheless, the share
of expenditures on gas increased by 56% from 2008 to 2012, due to a sharp increase in the retail gas
price over the same period (driven by a 51% increase in the energy and supply component of the retail
price).59
55
The data available on gas and electricity prices is provided per consumption band. This report shows the middle
56
57
https://data.worldbank.org/country/bulgaria?view=chart
58
35f1af8d9ceb
59
76/454
Figure 30: Expenditures on gas and electricity as share of disposable income for households in Bulgaria (for
middle consumption bands DC and D2) using PPS prices60
prices. The energy and supply component of the retail electricity price in Bulgaria increased in the time
period, with the component fluctuating between 41 €/kWh and 58 €/kWh. Both electricity and gas
markets experienced a significant increase in the retail prices in the period 2008 – 2012, by 32% and
51%, respectively. As mentioned earlier, this was due to a similar increase in the energy and supply
component of the prices. It is interesting to see that, on the gas market for household consumers, the
wholesale price shows a similar pattern as the energy and supply component of the retail price. Due to
data limitations, this is not disclosed on the electricity market.
61
77/454
Figure 31 Retail household price for middle consumption bands (DC and D2) and wholesale prices in Bulgaria
available for the taxes and levies component and the network component for the gas market. The
wholesale electricity price is only available in 2016
wholesale price. For the electricity market there are available data for mark-up only in 2016. The
energy and supply component increased between 2015 and 2008 by 37%. In the gas market, from 2008
to 2014 negative mark-ups were observed, which may indicate risk of tariff deficit.
62
63
2014
78/454
Figure 32 Mark-ups for Bulgaria, middle consumption bands (DC and D2)
Note that data is not available for the gas market in 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2016. No data is available
on the wholesale electricity price, except in 2016

One of the indicators which are used to estimate the level of energy poverty hints at a decrease in the
number of consumers which are potentially suffering from energy poverty. Figure 8 shows that the
share of the population that is unable to keep their home adequately warm decreased from
approximately 65% in 2008 to less than 40% in 2016. The percentage of the population with arrears on
their utility bills is remaining rather constant, fluctuating between 28% (in 2012) and 34% (in 2013).
on utility bills in Bulgaria
79/454
Source: Eurostat

The satisfaction rate of the electricity market is rather low, fluctuating between 45 and 55, being the
lowest in the EU.64 At the same time, the percentage of costumers who experienced at least one
problem fluctuated between 26% in 2012 and 37% in 2013. On the other hand, the gas market received
significantly higher score, from 68 to 74 and the highest percentage of costumers who experienced a
problem at least once was 13% in 2012. Still, the gas market score is below the average EU score, and
the Bulgarian gas market was ranked 18th in 2012. 65
64
65
Ibid.
80/454
one problem in Bulgaria for households
Both markets (especially electricity) received low scores in terms of trust of consumers in suppliers to
respect the rules and regulations protecting consumers. In general, the Bulgarian electricity market
scored the lowest or second lowest on all components surveyed except for the proportion of
complaints.67
Figure 35 Ability of consumers to compare products or services68, trust of consumers in suppliers 69 and
perceived ease of switching70 in Bulgaria
66
67
68
DG Justice survey: The functioning of retail electricity markets for consumers in the EU. Question: “I can chose from
69
81/454
Data on the perceived ease of switching between electricity suppliers is only available in 2015
Consumer choice
Since the prices are regulated, the savings from switching provider are minimal, because the customers
will have no benefit by doing so.
Figure 36 Percentage of the current electricity bill which could be saved by switching supplier in Bulgaria

The diagrams below show the type of offers available for electricity and gas, the majority of which
have variable price for both markets.
Figure 37 Type of offers for households in Bulgaria
82/454
3.2 Non-Household Price Regulation in Bulgaria
Bulgaria still has energy price regulation for non-households in place. For electricity, only the
low voltage bands are regulated.
Since the beginning of 2013 the electricity market is regulated only in the low voltage band.71 However,
in 2016 still about half of the non-household electricity consumption volume was price-regulated.72
Figure 38 Non-household price regulation in Bulgaria from 2008 to 2016
No data available for the electricity market between 2013 and 2016
Source: CEER data

the wholesale prices. Data for electricity wholesale prices are available only for 2016. Energy and
supply component has the highest fluctuation between the three components, fluctuating between 61
and 44.5 €/MWh. For the gas market the wholesale price follows the same trend as the energy and
supply component for gas price.
71
72
35f1af8d9ceb
83/454
Figure 39 Industry retail price components for middle bands (ID and I3) and wholesale prices in Bulgaria
available for the taxes and levies component and the network component for the gas market. Data on
the electricity wholesale price is only available in 2016
For the electricity market there are available data for mark-up only in 2016. The energy and supply
component increased between 2015 and 2008 by 37%. Figure 15 shows that there were negative mark-
ups for the gas market, which may indicate risk of tariff deficit.
73
2014
84/454
Figure 40 Mark-ups for Bulgaria, middle consumption bands (ID and I3)
Note that data is not available for the gas market in 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2016. Data on the
electricity wholesale price is only available in 2016
3.3 Tariff deficit in Bulgaria
Bulgaria still has a tariff deficit. To solve that issue, the NRA attempted to increase the
electricity prices by 14% as of January 2013 but due to continuous protests the regulator took
back the decision of increasing the electricity prices and gradually reduce the prices by 13% in
2013.
Bulgaria has an integral electricity tariff covering all electricity costs, and retail prices for households
are in nominal terms by far the lowest in the EU and hardly changed between 2008 and 2012 (Figure
31). The past five years an upward trend in generation costs was observed due to:74
• the expansion of RES incentivised by subsidies for solar power and cogeneration
• The long-term purchase power agreements
74
85/454
• Delays in market liberalisation.
According to the World Bank, the integral tariff is not sufficient to match the corresponding costs borne
by electricity utilities.75 The deficit is accumulated mainly in the state-owned company NEK which is
dominating the market, and the foreign-owned distribution companies. 76 To solve that issue, the
Bulgarian energy regulator attempted to increase the electricity prices by 14% as of January 2013. Due
to continuous protests the regulator took back the decision of increasing the electricity prices and
gradually reduce the prices by 13% in 2013.
4 Factsheet: Cyprus
This factsheet presents the findings for Cyprus for the ‘Study on energy prices, costs and subsidies’. The
indicators presented here are based on the database compiled for the study and includes data up to
2016. The text, on the other hand, presents current developments at national level. The factsheet has
been reviewed by an NRA representative and data has been adjusted accordingly.
4.1 Household Price Regulation in Cyprus
Cyprus still has energy price regulation for households in place for electricity.
Cyprus has no gas market.
Cyprus’ electricity market price for households is still regulated. So far, no gas market exists in Cyprus,
due to geographical isolation and the small size of the market. However, several actions were taken
towards the termination of isolation of Cyprus, such as the current CERA’s decision issued on October
2017 whereby the following have been decided:
• The PCI No. 7.3.2 "Removing internal bottlenecks in Cyprus to end the isolation and allow the
transmission of gas from the Eastern Mediterranean region" has reached a sufficient degree of
maturity for decision-making purposes,
• the sharing of costs between the two Member States is reasonable and documented and there is a net
positive impact of project results on the parties involved, and
• taking into account the investment application request of the Project Implementing Body, the
Republic of Cyprus is the only one of the two Member States involved to bear any investment and
operating costs related to the implementation of the project while Greece will bear no costs.
Another PCI which is promoted is the “EastMed Pipeline” which is a pipeline from offshore Cyprus to
Greece mainland via Crete.77 Since there is no gas market currently in Cyprus, the rest of the report
will focus only on electricity market.
75
Ibid.
76
Ibid.
77
Private communication with the NRA (2018).
86/454
Figure 41 Household price regulation in Cyprus from 2008 to 2016
Source: CEER data
Cyprus Energy Regulatory Authority (CERA) issued a regulatory decision in August 2013 to enforce
electricity providers to reduce electricity tariffs to vulnerable costumers, and then a second one in
October 2016.78 After May 2016, the Public Service Obligations (PSO) tariff was set at 0.00065 €/kWh
for all Energy Authority of Cyprus (EAC) customers (EAC is the sole generator of electricity in Cyprus).78
This tariff was then revised in May 2018 to €0.00083 / KWh. 79 Surprisingly, although the financial
situation in Cyprus for the examined period was deteriorating (resulting in applying for capital control
in March 2013 80), the percentage of households on social tariffs was reduced from approximately 6% in
2011 to less than 3% in 2012, and remaining below 4.5% the following years.
78
https://www.ceer.eu/documents/104400/3736793/C16_NR_Cyprus-EN.pdf/801094a0-86cb-9a61-42b4-
ac0979379076
https://www.ceer.eu/documents/104400/5988265/C17_NR_Cyprus-EN.pdf/ff6348c4-9372-e9ff-7cb1-ea607ecaa3d2
79
80
https://www.ft.com/content/9901f6ce-96f2-11e2-a77c-00144feabdc0
87/454
Figure 42 Household social tariffs in Cyprus
Source: CEER data

Due to the limitation of the Cypriot market (geographical isolation and the small size of the market)
there is only one electricity supplier.
Figure 43: Number of suppliers and market shares in Cyprus
Note: Data on the number of suppliers with market shares >5% is only available from 2013 onwards.
Source: CEER data
88/454
Consumer engagement 81 and expenditures on energy
calculated expenditures on electricity as a share of disposable income for households in the middle
consumption bands 82 (for electricity, those who consume between 2.5 MWh and 5 MWh per year). 83 The
indicator shows the significance of the total energy bill compared to the disposable income and is
therefore a proxy to understand the level and evolution of the affordability of energy in Cyprus. In the
examined period, a reduction by 34% in the GDP per capita was observed.84 That resulted in increasing
the expenditures on electricity as share of disposable income in Cyprus continuously until 2012. In 2013,
CERA implemented social tariffs resulting in a reduction in expenditures on electricity as share of
disposable income.85
Figure 44: Expenditures on gas and electricity as share of disposable income for households in Cyprus (for
81
As there is only one supplier of energy in Cyprus, switching rates are not relevant
82
per year), D2 for the gas market for households consumers (20 GJ – 200 DJ per year), ID for the electricity market for
83
84
https://data.worldbank.org/country/cyprus?view=chart
85
ac0979379076
86
Purchasing Power Parity (PPS) is an artificial currency used to compare prices across countries, taking into account
87
89/454
prices. In 2011 and 2012, there was an increase by 20% and 22% in the energy and supply component,
respectively. In the following years, there was a continuous reduction which resulted in a total
reduction by 49% in 2016 compared to 2012 values.
Figure 45 Retail household price for middle consumption bands (DC and D2) and wholesale prices in Cyprus
Note that data is not available for the electricity market in 2008 and 2009.
Source: Eurostat (components of the electricity retail price) and EMOS (wholesale price)
price and retail energy price component.88
The reason why there are no mark-up data for Cyprus is due to the fact that there is no real wholesale
price in Cyprus but rather a ‘wholesale tariff’. The wholesale tariff is the price set by EAC Generation
to EAC Supply and to other suppliers at what is called ‘the Basic Fuel Price’ 89 . The retail prices (thus
the tariffs) decreased since 2012 as the regulator urged EAC to lower its profit and thus to decrease the
tariffs.

Energy poverty proxies are decreasing since 2013, as can be seen from the diagram below, despite the
deterioration of the economy after 2008. A potential explanation could be that the decrease in the
88
2014
89 The wholesale tariff is adjusted based on the weighted average fuel price, which is announced by EAC every month,
and the fuel adjustment coefficient for customers at high voltage, which is approved by CERA every 6 months adjusted
with the loss adjustment factor at high voltage of each month as set by the relevant CERA's decision (No.173/2017) –
see also: https://www.eac.com.cy/EN/CustomerService/Tariffs/Pages/ditimisihondrikis.aspx
.
90/454
inability to keep the home adequately warm and arrears on utility bills is that it coincides with the
implementation of the social tariff.
utility bills in Cyprus
Source: Eurostat
It is important to note that, in Cyprus, vulnerable consumers are defined either as families with more
than 3 dependent children with an annual gross family income up to € 51,258 , recipients of different
types of assistance provided by the Social Welfare Services of the Ministry of Labour, Welfare and Social
Insurance (including assistance provided to those with disabilities and to pensioners with low incomes) as
well as Individuals suffering from multiple sclerosis who are registered members of the Cyprus Multiple
Sclerosis Association.90

General level of satisfaction varies between 55 and 70. In 2013, there were no problems reported at all.
90
ac0979379076
91/454
one problem in Cyprus for households
The next figure (Fig. 8) shows the consumer satisfaction level, which is rather high in Cyprus. The
decrease in the score of ‘trust of consumers in electricity suppliers to respect the rules and regulations
protecting consumers’ can be explained by the explosion at the Naval Base that occurred on the 11th of
July 2011 and led to damage at the nearby Vasiliko Power Station (which was responsible for covering
approximately 50% of the island’s electricity demand).92 The operation of the Power Station was halted
for more than one year and eventually the measure of rolling-blackouts was applied to control the
electricity supply. It should be stated though, that the Vasiliko Power Station restarted its operation
earlier than expected.93
91
92
https://energypress.gr/news/kypros-polynekri-ekrixi-se-naytiki-vasi-katastrofi-ilektroparagogikoy-stathmoy
93
92/454
perceived ease of switching96 in Cyprus
Consumer choice
The table below provides an overview of key indicators regarding consumer choice. Due to the lack of
options for consumers (only one electricity supplier at the moment and no gas market) this table is not
applicable to the Cypriot energy market.
Table 4-1 Consumer choice in Cyprus (electricity, households)
Answer
Dual-offers (electricity and gas combined) available in 2014 (CC03) N/A
Certified green offers available in 2015 (CC04) N/A
-
programs, etc.) (CC16)
Availability of non-financial benefits in 2014 (home insurance, free maintenance of water boilers, etc.)
-
(CC17)
-
etc.) (CC18)
By Decision 145/2017 issued on July 18, 2017, CERA decided to approve the DSO’s proposal on the
switching supplier procedure. There is no data for Cyprus on the type of offers available for electricity
and gas, as there is only one electricity provider and no existing gas market.
94
DG Justice survey: The functioning of retail electricity markets for consumers in the EU. Question: “I can choose from
95
96
DG Justice survey: The functioning of retail electricity markets for consumers in the EU. Question: “Which of the
93/454
4.2 Non-Household Price Regulation in Cyprus
Cyprus legally phased out energy price regulation for non-households for electricity starting from
2014, though in practice prices remain regulated.
Cyprus has no gas market.
On 1 January 2014, full liberalisation of the electricity market was achieved, but only legally. In
practice, nothing changed as there is only one supplier (EAC).97
Figure 49 Non-household price regulation in Cyprus from 2008 to 2016
Not relevant, because of non-existing

gas market
Source: CEER data
Also here, due to the specific energy system of Cyprus, there are no figures available for the mark-ups.
The figures below refer to the energy component of the final electricity price for non-households which
has decreased since 2012. EAC is using ‘Commercial and Industrial Use Tariffs’. These tariffs decreased
for the same reason as for the household tariffs (EAC had to decrease these tariffs by the regulator).
97
94/454
Figure 50 Industry retail price components for middle bands (ID and I3) and wholesale prices in Cyprus
Note that data is not available for the electricity market in 2008 and 2009
Source: Eurostat (components of the electricity retail price)
4.3 Tariff deficit in Cyprus
No tariff deficit was identified for Cyprus between 2008 and 2016.
5 Factsheet: the Czech Republic

This factsheet presents the findings for the Czech Republic for the ‘Study on energy prices, costs and
subsidies’. The indicators presented here are based on the database compiled for the study and
includes data up to 2016. The text, on the other hand, presents current developments at national level.
The factsheet has been reviewed by an NRA representative and data has been adjusted accordingly.
5.1 Household Price Regulation in the Czech Republic
The Czech Republic had no energy price regulation for households in the period assessed.
The total number of active electricity suppliers for both household and non-household customers has
been slightly increasing over time, with 52 active suppliers in 2013 increasing to 61 in 2016. The
95/454
numbers are the same for household and non-household end users as all suppliers cover both customer
segments. Even though data on the number of active suppliers is not available prior to 2013, the market
share of the three largest suppliers suggests that the number of suppliers was smaller in the years
before 2013. The increase in the number of suppliers is an indication of more competition on the
electricity market for household consumers.
In the gas market for households, the total number of active suppliers has been constantly increasing
from 24 in 2010 to 86 in 2016. Moreover, the number of suppliers with more than 5% market share has
been decreasing. Both developments are an indication of intensified competition on the gas market for
household consumers. However, from the figure below, one cannot conclude if the reduced market
shares of those suppliers that moved below the 5% market share threshold resulted in higher market
shares for small entities or if the four suppliers with more than 5% market share in 2016 absorbed the
market power of the companies that moved below the 5% threshold (as no data is available on the
market shares of the three largest suppliers in 2012, 2013 and 2014).
Figure 51: Number of suppliers and market shares in the Czech Republic
For the electricity market, data on the number of active suppliers is only available from 2011 onwards
and data on the market shares of the three largest suppliers only until 2013. For the gas market, data
on the market shares of the three largest suppliers is only available in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2015, 2016
Source: CEER data
The figures below show the annual switching rates 98 in households for both electricity and gas. They
show a similar pattern in both electricity and gas markets, increasing since 2008 to 2011/2012 from
almost non-existent in 2008 to above 7% and 12%, respectively. Since 2012 the switching rates have
been decreasing but increasing again in 2016, above 5 and 6%, respectively. The overall increase in
98
96/454
electricity supplier switching in 2016 is mainly attributable to the year-on-year growth of 43.7% in the
household segment.99
The high relatively high switching rates suggest high levels of competition on the markets.
Figure 52 Annual switching rates for households in the Czech Republic
Source: CEER data
understand the level and evolution of the affordability of energy in the Czech Republic. In the Czech
Republic, the share of expenditures on electricity has been around 5% until 2013, and slightly above 4%
since then, which is higher than the EU average of around 4%. For gas, it is substantially above the 1 to
2% EU average expenditure.
99
National Report of the Energy Regulatory Office on the Electricity and Gas Industries in the Czech Republic in 2016
(July 2017), available at: https://www.ceer.eu/documents/104400/5988265/C17_NR_CzechRepublic-
EN.pdf/bfe72765-5439-c12f-4b31-167c2d628fad
100
per year), D2 for the gas market for households consumers (20 GJ – 200 GJ per year), ID for the electricity market
for non-household consumers (2 GWh – 20 GWh per year) and I3 for the gas market for non-household consumers (10
TJ – 100 TJ per year)
101
The expenditures on energy where calculated by multiplying the energy consumption per household by its price
and divide this by the disposable income per household.
97/454
Figure 53: Expenditures on gas and electricity as share of disposable income for households in the Czech
Republic (for middle consumption bands DC and D2) using PPS prices102
prices. It is interesting to see that for the Czech Republic, from 2012 there is a slight decrease in the
energy and supply component of the electricity retail price which is more or less in line with the slight
decrease of electricity wholesale prices. This suggest a relatively competitive electricity market for
household consumers. In the gas market, the trend of the energy component is also in line with the
wholesale price, at least for the years where information is available.
102
Purchasing Power Parity (PPS) is an artificial currency used to compare prices across countries, taking into
account the differences in purchasing power between countries (Eurostat statistics explained, 2014).
103
98/454
Figure 54 Retail household price for middle consumption bands (DC and D2) and wholesale prices in the Czech
Republic
wholesale price.
104
105
2014
99/454
Figure 55 Mark-ups for the Czech Republic, middle consumption bands (DC and D2)
gas retail price) and EMOS (wholesale price).
The figures above show that in the electricity markets, the mark-up varies from 12 EUR/ MWh in 2011
to 33 EUR/ MWh in 2009, and there has been a continuous decrease since 2012 from 23 EUR/ MWh to 16
EUR / MWh in 2016 as the energy and supply component of the retail price and the wholesale price
have been converging. In the gas market, the mark-up has been around 12 EUR/MWh in 2010 to 17 EUR/
MWh in 2015, but that data is patchy.

The consumers in the Czech Republic which are potentially suffering from energy poverty have been
constant at around 4% (based on the indicators below), and dropped to just above 3% in recent years, as
can be seen by the diagram below showing the share of the population with arrears on their utility bills.
The share of consumers unable to keep their home adequately warm has been fluctuating over time
between 6-7%, dropping to below 4% in 2016. At the same time, the energy component in retail prices
has been very slightly decreasing in the last years.
100/454
utility bills in the Czech Republic
Source: Eurostat
The Energy Act does not define vulnerable customers in the Czech Republic.

Figure 7 shows the general level of satisfaction with the energy industry and the percentage of people
who experienced at least one problem. With respect to the first, no conclusive trends are observed
over the time period. On both the electricity and the gas market, the general level of satisfaction
decreased until 2012 and increased in 2013 and 2015. On average, the Czechs seem to be slightly more
satisfied with the gas sector than with the electricity sector. Concerning the latter, the percentage of
people who experienced at least one problem, a positive trend is observed on the electricity market (a
decreasing trend). On the gas market, this decreasing trend is not disclosed. However, in most years,
the percentage of people with problems was lower on the gas market than on the electricity market.
101/454
one problem in the Czech Republic for households
Figure 8 shows mixed results with respect to the development of the consumer satisfaction. On the
electricity and the gas market, the score for the perceived ease of switching fell from 2012 to 2015,
while on the contrary the score for the ability of consumers to compare products or services rose in the
same period. This suggests that switching rates still have the potential to increase if switching supplier
would be better facilitated.
106
102/454
perceived ease of switching109 in the Czech Republic
Consumer choice
The table below provides an overview of key indicators regarding consumer choice. On the Czech
electricity market for households, dual offers and certified green offers are available, which are
indications of a fairly developed electricity market in which consumers can choose their supplier and
different types of contracts. Data on other indicators is missing for the Czech Republic. Figure 9 shows,
again, that despite the relatively efficient and competitive electricity market, consumers could still
save more than 10% of their electricity bill by switching supplier.
Table 5-1 Consumer choice in the Czech Republic (electricity, households)
Answer
Dual-offers (electricity and gas combined) available in 2014 Yes
-
programs, etc.)
Availability of non-financial benefits in 2014 (home insurance, free maintenance of water boilers, etc.) -
-
etc.)
107
DG Justice survey: The functioning of retail electricity markets for consumers in the EU. Question: “I can chose
from a sufficient number of electricity providers?”
108
DG Justice survey: The functioning of retail electricity markets for consumers in the EU. Question: “In your
opinion, do consumers trust electricity suppliers with respect to the rules and regulations protecting consumers?”
109
103/454
Figure 59 Percentage of the current electricity bill which could be saved by switching supplier in the Czech
Republic (PS05a)

The diagrams below show the type of offers available for electricity and gas.
Figure 60 Type of offers for households in the Czech Republic
5.2 Non-Household Price Regulation in the Czech Republic
Czech Republic had no energy price regulation for non-households in the period assessed.
There was no end user price regulation for non-household consumers between 2008 and 2016.

the wholesale prices. Figure 11 shows that ever since 2009, the energy and supply component of the
retail electricity price has been declining. The increases in the network costs component of the retail
price until 2013 were largely due to a rise in the cost of funding the RES support scheme which is
recovered through distribution tariffs. These amounted to over 13 €/MWh in 2016. The overall retail
price sharply decreased in 2014. Between 2011 and 2016, the energy and supply component of the
retail electricity price seems to be aligned with the wholesale price, which is an indication of an
104/454
efficient electricity market for non-household consumers. On the gas market for non-household
consumers, the energy and supply component of the retail price decreased between 2008 and 2015.
However, the changes are relatively modest compared to the large changes on the electricity market.
Figure 61 Industry retail price components for middle bands (ID and I3) and wholesale prices in the Czech
Republic
Note that data is not available for the gas market in 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2016. Also, there is no
data available for the taxes and levies component and the network component for the gas market.
On the electricity market for non-household consumers, an almost constant decrease in the mark-ups is
disclosed (with 2012 being the exception). In 2016, the wholesale price outweighed the retail price
which resulted in a negative mark-up. Although decreasing mark-ups are another indication of a
competitive energy market, negative mark-ups can also lead to a tariff deficit. On the gas market for
non-household consumers, too little data is available to disclose clear trends. It is, however, observed,
that the differential between the energy and supply component of the retail price and the wholesale
price has been very small throughout the years.
110
2014
105/454
Figure 62 Mark-ups for the Czech Republic, middle consumption bands (ID and I3)
Note that data is not available for the gas market in 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2016.
5.3 Tariff deficit in the Czech Republic
Czech Republic had no tariff deficit between 2008 and 2016.
6 Factsheet: Germany
This factsheet presents the findings for Germany for the ‘Study on energy prices, costs and subsidies’.
The indicators presented are based on the database compiled for the study and includes data up to
6.1 Household Price Regulation in Germany
Germany had no energy price regulation for households in the period assessed.
106/454
Germany has no price regulation on household electricity or gas prices. The gas and electricity markets
were liberalized in 1998.111 Still, prices on the gas market did not develop naturally after 1998, as the
wholesale price was coupled to petroleum prices by gas suppliers. For household prices, this coupling
was declared unconstitutional in 2010 and prices have developed freely ever since.112

For both electricity and gas (in households), there has been a constant increase in the number of active
suppliers. This rise is more pronounced in the electricity market, with supplier numbers rising from
roughly 900 to roughly 1300 between 2011 and 2016. Entrance in the gas market was more modest, 100
new market actors becoming active between 2011 and 2016.
Figure 63: Number of suppliers and market shares in Germany
Note that data was not available for several years (empty bars do not refer to zeros, but to missing
data)
Source: CEER data
have steadily increased since 2008. The NRA provides more detailed data, differentiating between
switches due to households moving to an area served by a different supplier or not. Both for electricity
and gas, switches where households do not change their residence are the large majority of cases. The
NRA attributes the constant increase in switching rates to the new legal basis for supplier switch, the
potential savings from such a switch and the increased customer choice available. 114
111
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/enwg_2005/
112 http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-
bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&sid=989e39411244f8df7c46872aba5ea8de&nr=51829&pos=0&
anz=5
113
114
Bundesnetzagentur (2017). Monitoringbericht 2017.
107/454
Figure 64 Annual switching rates for households in Germany
For the electricity market, data on the number of active suppliers is only available from 2011 onwards.
Source: CEER data
and 5 MWh per year and for gas those who consume between 20GJ and 200 GJ per year).116 The
therefore a proxy to understand the level and evolution of the affordability of energy in Germany. Over
the years, expenditure shares of electricity and gas in the middle consumption bands in Germany have
remained rather stable. Electricity oscillates lightly between 3.2%-3.4% (with one outlier of 3.6% in
2013), whereas gas takes up roughly 1.5% of disposable income. No real effect can be observed for
household gas prices after the decision in 2010 to uncouple gas prices from petroleum prices.
115
116
108/454
Figure 65: Expenditures on gas and electricity as share of disposable income for households in Germany (for
prices. It is interesting to see that, for Germany, retail electricity prices rose from 2008-2013 and have
remained stable ever since. Hereby, the energy component part has not fluctuated majorly and stayed
at roughly 70-75 EUR/MWh over the investigated time period. An interesting finding is that the energy
and supply component of the retail gas price fell by roughly 10 EUR/MWh between 2008 and 2010. This
could have been a direct effect of the decision to uncouple the gas price from the petroleum price.
Since then, however, the price of the energy and supply component for gas has reverted back to 2008
levels (around 40 EUR/MWh).
118
109/454
Figure 66 Retail household price for middle consumption bands (DC and D2) and wholesale prices in Germany
wholesale price.
119
120
2014
110/454
Figure 67 Mark-ups for Germany, middle consumption bands (DC and D2)
Mark-ups in the electricity sector jumped from 9 EUR/MWh to 43 EUR/MWh in just one year from 2008
to 2009. Since then, the mark-up has remained relatively stable, with a low (2011) and a high (2013)
outlier. The 2011 drop in mark-up was due to an increase in wholesale prices and a decrease in the
price of the energy component of the retail price. The wholesale price seems to have stabilized since
2014, whereas the energy and supply component of the retail price exhibits a negative trend since
2013. In the gas market, mark-ups oscillated between 14-18 EUR/MWh between 2008-2015. In 2011, the
mark-up experienced a low at 11 EUR/MWh owing to a proportionally steeper rise in wholesale prices to
the energy and supply component of the gas retail price.

The consumers in Germany which are potentially suffering from energy poverty are decreasing over
time, as can be seen by the diagram below showing the share of the population with arrears on their
utility bills and unable to keep their home adequality warm. Just about 3.5% of the population cannot
keep their home adequately warm in 2016 (down from 6% in 2008). The percentage of the population
with arrears on utility bills decreased only in recent years and is, in 2016, just below the 3% mark
(down from 4.2% in 2014).
111/454
on utility bills in Germany
Source: Eurostat

Over the period of investigation, the electricity sector has seen a significant rise in consumer
satisfaction, up 10 points (on a 100-point scale) between 2010 and 2015. The percentage of people
experiencing a problem with services also steadily decreased to below 6% (down from 9% in 2011).
Consumer satisfaction in the gas sector followed roughly the same itinerary. The incidence of problems
experienced with gas sector services seemed to have peaked in the year 2012 with roughly 7.5% of
customers raising complaints. Since then, it seems that the incidence of problems has been put under
control again. Just about 5% of customers now report at least one problem (compared to roughly 4.5% in
2010).
one problem in Germany for households
112/454
perceived ease of switching124 in Germany
As can be seen in Figure 8, ability of consumers to compare products or services has increased in both
markets, probably owing to the steadily increasing number of supplier options (and the resulting market
opportunity for entrepreneurs to offer comparison tools). Overall trust of consumers in suppliers to
respect rules and regulations protecting consumers also increased steadily (and more starkly in recent
years). Perceived ease of switching is high and stable in both markets.
Consumer choice
The table below provides an overview of key indicators regarding consumer choice. The German
markets do count with benefits and offers that widen consumer choice such as green offers or sign-in
discounts. In 2014 no dual-offers were available so that there were still difficulties in integrating
electricity, gas and other markets such as insurances, but by 2017 the NRA reported that 18% of the
electricity suppliers offered them.125
Table 6-1 Consumer choice in Germany (electricity, households)
121
122
DG Justice survey: The functioning of retail electricity markets for consumers in the EU. Question: “I can choose
123
125
113/454
Answer
Dual-offers (electricity and gas combined) available in 2014 No
Yes
programs, etc.)
Yes
etc.)
Figure 71 Percentage of the current electricity bill which could be saved by switching supplier in Germany

The diagrams below show the type of offers available for electricity and gas, most of which are fixed.
Figure 72 Type of offers for households in Germany
6.2 Non-Household Price Regulation in Germany
Germany had no energy price regulation for non-households in the period assessed.
114/454
Germany has no price regulation on non-household electricity or gas prices. As for households, the gas
and electricity markets were liberalized in 1998 126, but prices on the gas market did not develop
naturally after 1998, as the wholesale price was coupled to petroleum prices by gas suppliers. For
household prices, this coupling was declared unconstitutional in 2010 and prices have developed freely
ever since.127 However, the ruling was reverted for non-household customers in 2014 – coupling of
prices is therefore still exercised for that segment. 128

the wholesale prices. (Industry) wholesale prices in the electricity market fell steadily over the
investigated time period, stabilizing from 2014 onwards. Retail prices, on the other hand, increased
between 2008-2014 mainly due to a hike in the taxes and levies component of the retail price. This is
likely due to Germany’s implementation of heavy subsidies for electricity generated by renewable
energy sources (EEG law 129). The energy and supply component of the retail price decreased yearly
between 2009-2016. For the gas market, wholesale prices rose steadily between 2009 and 2013, just to
drop in 2014 when the gas price for non-households was coupled to petroleum once more. The energy
component of the retail price rose from 2010 onwards and has stabilized since 2014.
Figure 73 Industry retail price components for middle bands (ID and I3) and wholesale prices in Germany
126
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/enwg_2005/
127
http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-
bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&sid=989e39411244f8df7c46872aba5ea8de&nr=51829&pos=0&
anz=5
128
http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-
bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=pm&Datum=2014&Sort=3&nr=67705&pos=0&anz=82
129
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/eeg_2014/
115/454
For the electricity market, (industry) retail mark-ups fell to 7 EUR/MWh in 2016 after a period of
fluctuation between 10-19 EUR/MWh from 2010 and 2015. Reason for the mark-up to vanish is the
stabilization of wholesale prices paired with the continued fall of the energy and supply component of
the retail price. In the gas market, mark-ups have returned to 2010 levels after a period of low margins
between 2011 and 2013 (due to a hike in wholesale price; the ruling of 2014 is likely to have reverted
the trend and brought mark-ups back to before-2010 levels).
Figure 74 Mark-ups for Germany, middle consumption bands (ID and I3)
130
2014
116/454
6.3 Tariff deficit in Germany
Germany had a temporary tariff deficit in recent years due to the way that its support of
renewable energy is structured. However, the deficit is paid off immediately in the subsequent
year (via an increase in the surcharge).
In recent years, Germany has repeatedly run a temporary tariff deficit due to the way that its support
of renewable energy is structured. The EEG surcharge, paid for by end-consumers and defined each
year based on forecasted renewable energy production, hereby runs the risk of not matching with
actual costs of renewable energy electricity production. This deficit is, however, not cumulated
annually but rather paid off immediately in the subsequent year (via an increase in the surcharge).
Accounts were hence balanced in 2017, leading to a small reduction of the EEG surcharge in 2018. 131
7 Factsheet: Denmark
This factsheet presents the findings for Denmark for the ‘Study on energy prices, costs and subsidies’.
7.1 Price Regulation in Denmark
Denmark phased out energy price regulation for households starting from 2016 for electricity
(though 2% of consumers remained under price regulation up to May 2017), but still had energy
price regulation in place for gas in 2016 (covering around 6% of consumers).
Denmark has recently changed its position regarding regulated electricity prices, implementing the
supplier centric model (SCM) by amending the Danish Electricity Act (DES). Prior to the entry into force
of the SCM in 2016, Denmark licensed default suppliers for specific grid areas. These licensed default
suppliers had a universal service obligation to supply any customer who did not actively choose a
supplier. After 2013 these default suppliers were chosen through competitive tenders, and with the
implementation of the SCM all inactive consumers were moved to a product without any price
regulation.132 Nine license holders (with supply obligation licenses covering 2% of consumers) still
operated under the previous regulatory regime, i.e. with prices regulated by DERA. By May 2017 the
licenses of these last default suppliers expired, and all households were moved to the liberalized
electricity market. In the new model, all suppliers have the obligation to provide electricity to
consumers in their active areas.
131
132
Danish Energy Regulatory Authority (2017), National report Denmark: Status for 2016. Available from:
https://www.ceer.eu/documents/104400/5988265/C17_NR_Denmark-EN.pdf/be24eae3-d615-a912-2f04-f043b3f2b165
117/454
In 2016, the non-regulated electricity products amounted to around 98% of the consumption and today,
all consumers receive market-based products. However, over 60% of the consumption is sold to
consumers who have not actively decided to change product and therefore receive a product chosen by
the supplier.
Figure 75 Distribution of customers among different electricity product types, 2014-2016.
Source: DERA (2017)

Regarding gas prices, in 2011, Denmark amended the Natural Gas Supply Act and changed DERA’s
supervision of the regulated default prices for gas customers who do not actively choose a gas supplier
(i.e. since 2013 DERA supervises the price of supply obligation products). The amendment also
introduced a basic product which acts as gradual phase-out of regulated gas products. 133 The supply
obligation products are decided through tenders of supply obligation licenses granted by DEA. Until
now, two auctions of licenses have been completed; one commenced in 2013 and one 2016. As a license
applies for 3 year, licenses granted in 2016 expire in 2019.134
• Gas supply obligation product – The supply obligation product is a default product which is supplied
to gas customers who have not actively chosen a supplier. The price of the supply obligation product
must not exceed the wholesale price of natural gas with an additional charge to cover several costs
(storage and other flexibility costs, costs of transmission outside Denmark, contribution margin and
subscription) plus transmission costs within Denmark. The price is determined on a monthly basis.
Suppliers of supply obligation products are found through tenders of supply obligation licenses. The
current license period started 1 May 2016 and ends 31 March 2019.
• Gas basic product: Customers, who have previously received a supply obligation product customer
and have not chosen a new supplier before 1 May 2016, will receive a basic product from their
existing supplier. The price and conditions for the basic product must correspond to the price and
conditions of the now abolished regulated supply obligation product. The basic product must be
available to all gas customers during the following period of supply obligation licenses, however, not
more than three years. The price is determined on a monthly basis.
133
At the end of the supply obligation license period, customers who have a supply obligation product and have not
chosen a new supplier are automatically transferred to a basic product (with price and conditions which correspond to
those of the supply obligation product). The basic product must be available during the following period of supply
obligation licenses, however, not more than three years.
134
Danish Energy Regulatory Authority (2017), National report Denmark: Status for 2016. Available from:
118/454
As of May 2016, the majority (around 94%) of Danish gas customers were supplied at unregulated prices
which are not supervised by DERA. The supply obligation products and the basic products are currently
supplied by two gas suppliers, and DERA is currently supervising the prices of these products. As the
share of customers is above 5% Denmark is considered to still apply regulated prices for gas in 2016,
although this ended in 2017.
Figure 76 Distribution of consumers on various types of products.
Source: DERA (2017)
7.2 Household Price Regulation in Denmark

As mentioned above, electricity household prices have been deregulated in 2016 while gas household
prices remain regulated. The diagrams below show the limited data available for household consumers,
though the images on the introduction above present a more complete overview.
Figure 77 Household price regulation in Denmark from 2008 to 2016
Source: CEER data and country experts
119/454
There are no social tariffs for households in Denmark (nor have there been any in the past 10 years). 135

There is limited information regarding competition in Denmark in the household sector. It can be seen
that both for electricity and gas (in households), there has been a large number of active suppliers in
the past years (over 40 for electricity and over 10 for gas). We see also that in both markets there
seems to be a few suppliers with more than 5% market share (6 suppliers for electricity in 2015 and 3
for gas).
Figure 78: Number of suppliers and market shares in Denmark
Source: CEER data
are overall rather low. Switching rates were at its highest point in 2009 for electricity (6%) and declined
slightly in the following years. There is no data available on the switching rates for the electricity
market for household consumers. However, the combined switching rates (household and non-household
consumers) were 6.3% in 2014, 7.2% in 2015 and 6.4% in 2016.137 On the other hand, switching rates
have been increasing for gas from 1% in 2008 to around 10% in 2015, driving competition. However,
there was still high market concentration in 2015 and 2016, with the three largest suppliers having over
90% of the market share (see figure above).
135 Source: CEER data

136
137 Danish Energy Regulatory Agency (2017) National Report 2017. Available at:
120/454
Figure 79 Annual switching rates for households in Denmark
Note: No information available for electricity from 2013 onwards, and for gas for 2014 or 2016.
Source: CEER data
understand the level and evolution of the affordability of energy in Denmark. While there is no clear
trend in the electricity market, the energy expenditures for gas as part of the disposable income have
decreased over time for gas.
consumption bands for easier visualization: DC for the electricity market for household consumers (2.5 MWh – 5 MWh
139
121/454
Figure 80: Expenditures on gas and electricity as share of disposable income for households in Denmark (for
prices. It is interesting to see that for Denmark, there is a clear correlation between wholesale price
and the energy component of the electricity retail price, with a slight decrease over the past years.
This correlation also seems present for gas, though it is more difficult to assess given the limited data
available.
141
122/454
Figure 81 Retail household price for middle consumption bands (DC and D2) and wholesale prices in Denmark
wholesale price. There has been a significant decrease in the gas mark-ups over time from 14 EUR/MWh
in 2011 to 3 EUR/MWh in 2015, while the electricity mark-ups have been more erratic, oscillating
between 8 and 22 EUR/MWh.
142
143
2014
123/454
Figure 82 Mark-ups for Denmark, middle consumption bands (DC and D2)

Proxies for energy poverty in Denmark were increasing from 2008 to 2013/2014 and have shown a
decreasing trend since then. This can be seen by the diagram below showing the share of the
population with arrears on their utility bills and unable to keep their home adequality warm. These
changes do not seem to be correlated to changes in the energy component of household electricity
retail prices. It has been noted by other studies, that Denmark has one of the highest energy taxes in
the EU.144
144
Insight E (2015), Energy poverty and vulnerable consumers in the energy sector across the EU: analysis of policies
and measures. Available at:
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/INSIGHT_E_Energy%20Poverty%20-
%20Main%20Report_FINAL.pdf
124/454
utility bills in Denmark
Source: Eurostat
Denmark is not commonly regarded as a country having issues with energy poverty. Neither the concept
of ‘energy poverty’ nor ‘vulnerable consumer’ have been defined in (energy) Danish law. The issue is
dealt with social legislation (via the social security system). Further, the principle of universality exists,
where every citizen has the right to social assistance when affected by a specific event.145

Consumers in Denmark seem to be more satisfied with the energy industry over time. Results are very
similar and follow the same trends in both the electricity and gas market in this regard. The figures
below show that the percentage of people experiencing problems, both with their electricity or gas
supplier, has decreased since 2011. At the same time, their general satisfaction with the industry has
increased from scores of around 75/100 to around 78/100.
145
and measures. Available at:
125/454
one problem in Denmark for households
Consumers in both markets trust their suppliers to respect rules and regulations protecting consumers.
They also perceive switching is easy, though this perception was negatively affected in 2015. The score
regarding the ability of consumers to compare products or services however, is only average, and shows
a potential area of improvement for gas and electricity suppliers.
146
126/454
perceived ease of switching149 in Denmark
Consumer choice
The table below provides an overview of key indicators regarding consumer choice. It shows that Danish
electricity suppliers could still provide consumers additional choice in 2016 by including dual offers and
providing non-financial benefits such as home insurance, free maintenance of water boilers, and others.
By 2018 dual-offers were also available to Danish households. 150
Table 7-1 Consumer choice in Denmark (electricity, households)
Answer
Dual-offers (electricity and gas combined) available in 2014 (CC03) No
Certified green offers available in 2015 (CC04) Yes
Yes
No
(CC17)
Yes
etc.) (CC18)
147
148
150
127/454
Figure 86 Percentage of the current electricity bill which could be saved by switching supplier in Denmark

The diagrams below show the type of offers available for electricity and gas, most of which are fixed in
the gas market and variable in the electricity market. However, DERA indicates that most variable
electricity and gas offers available in 2018 are in fact dynamic.151
Figure 87 Type of offers for households in Denmark
7.3 Non-Household Price Regulation in Denmark
Denmark phased out energy price regulation for non-households starting from 2016.
As mentioned in the introduction, electricity and gas non-household prices have been deregulated in
2016. The diagrams below show the limited data available for non-household consumers, though the
images on the introduction present a more complete overview.
151
128/454
Figure 88 Non-household price regulation in Denmark from 2008 to 2016
Source: CEER data

the wholesale prices. As in the case for households, we see there is a correlation for electricity
between the wholesale electricity price and the energy component of the industry retail price. The
correlation seems also present for gas, though the data available is limited.
Figure 89 Industry retail price components for middle bands (ID and I3) and wholesale prices in Denmark
129/454
In both, electricity and gas markets, mark-ups tend to be low in the industry sector compared to
households; though there was a considerable increase for electricity in 2014 and 2015. Electricity mark-
ups were stable around 1 – 2 EUR MWh between 2008 and 2013 and then increased to 10 EUR/ MWh in
2014, decreasing again to around 5 EUR/MWh in 2016. For gas, they were negative in 2008 but remained
between 2 and 4 EUR/MWh from 2010 to 2015.
Figure 90 Mark-ups for Denmark, middle consumption bands (ID and I3)
152
2014
130/454
7.4 Tariff deficit in Denmark
Denmark had no tariff deficit between 2008 and 2016.
8 Factsheet: Estonia
This factsheet presents the findings for Estonia for the ‘Study on energy prices, costs and subsidies’.
8.1 Household Price Regulation in Estonia
Estonia phased out energy price regulation for electricity in households starting from 2013, and
phased out price regulation for gas before 2008.
Arising from Directive 2009/72/EC and Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 and by virtue of the Electricity
Market Act (EMA), the Estonian Competition Authority (ECA) acts as the National Energy Regulator in
the country. Prior to 1998 the end-user tariffs were fixed by governmental decree. The EMA of 1998
abolished the fixed tariffs and introduced price regulation by the ECA instead. From 2003 to 2010 end
costumers were obliged to buy electricity from a distribution network operator under the Public Service
Obligation (PSO).
In 2010, Estonia introduced amendments to the EMA under which eligible customers (eligibility
threshold: 2 GWh/year) were encouraged to buy electricity based on market conditions153. By the end
of 2012 all earlier electricity contracts were invalidated in Estonia and since January 1st, 2013 Estonia
has abolished all price regulation on energy generation and supply. Thus, currently the country does
not regulate end-prices in either the electricity or gas markets. All customers, including households,
purchase electricity on the free market. In practical terms this means that consumers are free to
choose a suitable electricity seller irrespective of the network operator with whom the customer has
signed a contract 154. PSO is available for small customers (with connections lower than 63A) however, in
reality PSO tariffs are usually more expensive compered to market prices 155. In the case that a customer
does not sign a contract with a supplier, the customer is automatically assigned to PSO.
153
“Price regulation in Estonian power sector”, Märt Ots, Estonian Competition Authority, Budapest, 2017
154 “EU energy markets in 2014”, EC
155
“Price regulation in Estonian power sector”, Märt Ots, Estonian Competition Authority, Budapest, 2017
131/454
The Natural Gas Act does not grant the Estonian Competition Authority with powers pursuant to Article
41(4)(b) of Directive 2009/73/EC156 however, the ECA is able to apply provisions related to the
Competition Act. The Estonian gas market is supplied, almost entirely, by one non-EU supplier, which
prevent the normal functioning of both wholesale and retail gas markets 157.
Figure 91 Household price regulation in Estonia from 2008 to 2016
No price regulation on the gas market

for household consumers in Estonia
Source: CEER data
Figure 1 shows that in 2008 and 2009 all consumers purchased electricity at a price that was regulated.
After introducing amendments to the EMA in 2010, this number decreased to between 70 and 60
percent between 2010 and 2012. In 2013 all price regulation was abolished. The gas retail market in
Estonia has not been regulated during the time-period of interest.
Estonia has no social tariffs according to the CEER data.

For both electricity and gas (in households), we see that the three largest suppliers have had between
80 and 90 percent of market shares consistently over the last years. From 2008 to 2012 the sole
electricity supplier with a market share larger than 5 percent was Eesti Energia AS. In 2012 the
156 This Directive states that MS shall grant regulatory authorities the power to carry out investigations
into the functioning of the gas market.

157 “Electricity and Gas Markets in Estonia” report, 2017
132/454
company owned 82.9% of electricity sales the company, and the second highest percentage of shares
was of Elektrum Eesti AS, with 13% of electricity market sales 158. In the gas retail market the main
enterprise is AS Eesti Gaas, which constitutes the sole company with a market share of over 5
percent159. Based on the information in Figure 2, it is possible to observe a small decrease in the
number of electricity suppliers (including network undertakings) after abolishing price regulations 2013.
In contrast, in the gas retail market the number of suppliers has remained relatively steady between
2008 and 2016.
Figure 92: Number of suppliers and market shares in Estonia
Source: CEER data and the Estonian Competition Authority
Based on the 2014 EU energy markets report, the overall score for the retail gas market in Estonia was
the fourth highest in the EU, and the customer satisfaction score the fifth highest. However, switching
rates 160 in the Estonian retail gas market are very low. Figure 3 shows that there has been an increase
in annual switching rates between 2012 and 2013. This coincides with the final phase out of regulated
electricity prices for households. It is likely that the deregulation of prices in the energy retail market
brought about an increase in switching rates in both markets.
In contrast to the gas retail market, the performance of the electricity retail market scores below EU
average. As discussed above, the switching rates, have substantially increased after the abolishment of
price regulation in 2013.
158 “EU Energy Markets in 2014” EC

159 “EU Energy Markets in 2014” EC
160
133/454
Figure 93 Annual switching rates for households in Estonia
Note that the switching rate is per number of eligible meter points and eligible volumes
Source: CEER data
understand the level and evolution of the affordability of energy in Estonia. Figure 4 shows that
electricity bill constituted between 3 and 4.5 percent of the total disposable income between 2008 and
2016. There is a downward trend in electricity pricing after 2013. The expenditure on gas represents a
lower percentage of the disposable income share but follows a similar trend to that of electricity. No
significant impact of price deregulation on the affordability of the energy bill can be derived from the
figures.
162
134/454
Figure 94: Expenditures on gas and electricity as share of disposable income for households in Estonia (for
prices. For the electricity market the energy and supply component of the retail price has remained
fairly steady from 2008 to 2016 with slight increase between 2011 and 2012. In contrast network costs
increased substantially in 2013 after the reforms to the reforms of the Electricity Market Act. From
2013 onwards the energy and supply component represents about one third of the final retail price. The
energy and supply component for gas, loosely follows trend of wholesale gas price.
164
135/454
Figure 95 Retail household price for middle consumption bands (DC and D2) and wholesale prices in Estonia
wholesale price. In 2011, when price regulation was still in place, a negative mark-up of minus 9 was
observed for the electricity market. The mark-up doubled between 2014 and 2015, subsequently falling
slightly. As wholesale prices decreased in 2015 this mark-up increase did not lead to higher retail
prices. Since 2012 the energy and supply component of the retail price has been higher than the
wholesale price. As in the electricity market, the highest mark-up for gas was observed in 2015. A
slightly negative mark-up was calculated for the year 2010. No clear trends can be discerned in the
mark-ups for either the electricity or gas markets between 2008 and 2016, which might also be due to
missing data. On the other hand there is a strong co-movement between retail and wholesale prices
after the phase out of price regulation, both for electricity and gas.
165
166
2014
136/454
Figure 96 Mark-ups for Estonia, middle consumption bands (DC and D2)

Climate conditions in Estonia require household heating during a large part of the year. Energy poverty
in Estonia is understood as the ability to keep one’s home adequately warm. It has been reported that
the 20 percent of the poorest households in Estonia spend 10.7% of their income on domestic energy
services (at 2012 level)167.The consumers in Estonia which are potentially suffering from energy poverty
decreased since the phase out of price regulation for electricity in 2012, as can be seen by the diagram
below showing the share of the population with arrears on their utility bills and unable to keep their
home adequality warm, despite slight increases in these indicators since 2014.
167 “Energy Union Factsheet Estonia”, Commission Staff Working Document, EC, SWD(2017) 391 final
137/454
utility bills in Estonia
Source: Eurostat

Based on the data from Figure 8, 2015 has been a year in which client satisfaction in both the
electricity and gas household retail markets has been highest. In addition, it is possible to observe a
steady and sharp decline in the percentage of clients who have experience at least one problem in
relation to their electricity and gas provisions. These figures are encouraging as they suggest an overall
improvements in the quality of services provided over time. Figure 9, shows that in 2013 there was a
drop in customer’s ability to compare products or services in the electricity household retail market
however, by 2015 there was a complete recovery in the score for this indicator. This information
suggests that although the deregulation of electricity retail pricing in 2013 required some new learning,
customers were quick to adapt to the changes. This same trend is observed in relation to the trust of
consumers in suppliers to respect the rules and regulations protecting them. No data is available for
perceived ease of switching in the electricity market before 2013. Between 2013 and 2015 this
perception has increased favourably. In the gas retail market there was a large decrease in the
perceived ease of switching between 2012 and 2013. By 2015 the perceived ease of switching had
increased to almost 2012 levels. No large fluctuations are observed between 2010 and 2015 for neither
the customer’s ability to compare products nor the trust of consumers in suppliers to respect the rules
and regulations protecting them.
138/454
one problem in Estonia for households
perceived ease of switching171 in Estonia
168
169
170
139/454
Consumer choice
The table below provides an overview of key indicators regarding consumer choice. Table 1 suggests
that household customers in Estonia have many options in relation to dual-offers, green offers as well
as options providing non-price-financial benefits and non-financial benefits. Thus the electricity retail
market is diversified in terms of options. In addition, Figure 11 shows that the types of offers in the
electricity market include fixed, variable and spot-based options.
Table 8-1 Consumer choice in Estonia (electricity, households)
Answer
Dual-offers (electricity and gas combined) available in 2014 (CC03) Yes
Yes
Yes
(CC17)
-
etc.) (CC18)
Figure 100 Percentage of the current electricity bill which could be saved by switching supplier in Estonia

In 2015, the value was zero (i.e. there is no missing data)
Figure 101 Type of offers for households in Estonia
140/454
8.2 Non-Household Price Regulation in Estonia
Estonia phased out energy price regulation for non-households starting from 2014 for electricity
and before 2008 for gas.
Price deregulation in the electricity retail market was also applicable to non-household consumers. As
in the case of household consumers there has been no price regulation for non-household consumers in
the years from 2008 to 2016. In agreement with the Natural Gas Act the selling price of electricity to
non-household customers is not subject to regulation.
Figure 102 Non-household price regulation in Estonia from 2008 to 2016

for non-household consumers in Estonia
Source: CEER data

The alignment between the energy component of industry retail prices and wholesale prices over time
the wholesale prices. Figure 13 shows that from 2013 onwards the energy and supply component of the
electricity retail price for middle band users was almost equal (2013) or higher than the wholesale
price. The biggest difference between the two prices was observed in 2015. In contrast during 2011 and
2012 the opposite trend was true; wholesale prices were higher than the energy and supply component
of the retail electricity price. In the gas market, wholesale price was lower than the energy and supply
component of the retail price in 2008 and 2015. No data on the gas retail price for non-household
consumers is available for the years 2009, 2011 and 2013.
141/454
Figure 103 Industry retail price components for middle bands (ID and I3) and wholesale prices in Estonia
retail energy price component.172 The figure below show the mark-ups along with the wholesale price.
Figure 14 shows negative mark ups in the electricity retail market for non-household consumers in the
years preceding deregulation (2011 and 2012). In 2015 there was a large positive mark up, which
decreased subsequently. The gas retail market shows positive mark ups in the years 2008 and 2015 and
negative ones in 2010, 2012 and 2014.
172
2014
142/454
Figure 104 Mark-ups for Estonia, middle consumption bands (ID and I3)
8.3 Tariff deficit in Estonia
Estonia had no tariff deficit between 2008 and 2016.
9 Factsheet: Greece
This factsheet presents the findings for Greece for the ‘Study on energy prices, costs and subsidies’.
9.1 Household Price Regulation in Greece
143/454
Greece phased out household energy price regulation starting from 2013 for electricity but still
has price regulation for gas. While around 10% of consumers receive social tariffs, these are not
considered as price regulation as there is no maximum price for suppliers (subsidies are provided
instead).
The electricity market in Greece was first regulated in 1999 with the legislation “2773/1999
Liberalisation of the electricity market - Regulation of energy policy issues and other provisions” 173. The
gas market in Greece was already regulated in 1995 with the legislation “2364/1995 Constitution of the
energy control and design body. Both pieces of legislation were further updated following the 2nd and
3rd EU energy package with the legislations “3428/2005 Liberalisation of the natural gas market” 174 and
“4001/2011 For Electricity and Natural Gas Energy, for Hydrocarbon Research, Production and
Networks, and other regulations” 175. This led to establishment of a new TSO (ADMIE SA), initially a 100%
subsidiary of the stated owned Public Power Corporation (PPC) but since 2017 fully separate. In the gas
sector, the TSO of the national grid is DESFA SA.
The Greek Regulatory Authority for Energy (RAE) - which was established in July 2000 – introduced in
2013 a decoupled entry-exit tariff model in the gas sector 176. Unbundling
Greece applied end-user price regulation for electricity in the entire household sector until 1st of July
2013 when prices became fully liberalised. On the other hand, Greece continued applying end-user
price regulation for gas in the household sector for the entire period examined.
In 2016 (by Law 4425/2016), the Greek wholesale market was reorganised to “the Target Model” and as
such an intra-day and forward electricity market, a balancing market and regional markets were
established. For gas, a transition period – from geographically defined areas of operation and of
exclusivity supply rights to the free operation of retail suppliers - should finish by the end of 2018.
Figure 105 Household price regulation in Greece from 2008 to 2016
173
http://www.ypeka.gr/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=VtweJAT%2FbGU%3D&tabid=278&language=
174
http://www.depa.gr/uploads/files/laws/N_3428_2005__ΦΕΚ%20Α_313.pdf
175
http://www.depa.gr/uploads/files/laws/N_4001_2011__ΦΕΚ%20Α_179.pdf
176
144/454
Source: CEER data
The social tariffs remained regulated after the 1st of July 2013. Social residential tariffs were applied to
five categories of vulnerable customers (families with low income, families with 3 children, long and
short - term unemployed and people living on medical support 177) since 1st of January 2011. Since first
implementation in 2011, the share of households with residential social tariff was continuously
increasing until 2016. The reason behind this substantial increase was the deterioration of the financial
status of Greeks due to the continuous economic crisis. A total of 10% of all residential customers
benefitted from a social tariff in 2016. Further, the database shows no social tariffs for gas. Social
charges also cover the difference in the production cost between the mainland of the country and most
islands. All Non-Interconnected Islands (NNIs) are supplied by autonomous electrical systems. The
measure of social tariffs is financed by the rest of consumers through the Public Utility Charges
(Υπηρεσίες Κοινής Ωφέλειας ΥΚΩ).178
Figure 106 Household social tariffs in Greece
There are no social tariffs for gas in

Greece
Source: CEER data

For both electricity and gas (in households), we see that the three largest suppliers had almost 100% of
the market consistently over the last years. In the electricity market, the Public Power Corporation
177
https://www.ceer.eu/documents/104400/5988265/C17_NR_Greece-EN.pdf/8d93e7c7-7533-7739-0ff2-
0815975c0b20
178
https://www.dei.gr/el/dimosies-diavouleuseis/nomiko-kathestws-gia-tis-xrewseis-upiresiwn-koinis-wfeleias-ukw
145/454
(PPC) is dominating the market with more than a 90% share of the number of clients for the same
period. In the beginning, an increase in the number of active suppliers was observed until 2010, which
then started decreasing, reaching the lowest value (ten active suppliers) in 2015. Under the third
financial adjustment programme signed in August 2015 between Greece and the Troika 179, it was agreed
that the share of the PPC in the electricity market should drop to maximum 50% (from more than
90%).180 That resulted in an increase in the number of electricity suppliers. At the same time, there has
been no change in the number of active gas suppliers.
Figure 107: Number of suppliers and market shares in Greece
Source: CEER data
The figure below shows the annual switching 181 rate in households for electricity, while there is no data
available for the gas market. The increase observed in 2011 and 2012 was caused by an economical
scandal in which two electricity providers were involved which had to cease their operation, forcing all
their costumers to change provider.182 In 2012, in total four suppliers exited the market. 183 That scandal
had a negative effect on emerging electricity providers, as costumers were reluctant to risk changing to
a new provider. As mentioned earlier, the share of the PPC in the electricity market must drop to
maximum 50% (from more than 90%) 184, which resulted in a slight increase of consumer switching
electricity supplier in 2015 and 2016.
179
Troika consists of the European Commission (EC), the European Central Bank (ECB) and the International
Monetary Fund (IMF).
180
https://energypress.gr/news/mahairi-50-sto-meridio-agoras-tis-dei-vazei-neo-mnimonio-diavaste-ta-pliri-keimena-
analytika
181
182
https://energypress.gr/news/energa-hellas-power-o-lavyrinthos-ton-offshore-poy-ekryve-256-ekat
183
184
https://energypress.gr/news/mahairi-50-sto-meridio-agoras-tis-dei-vazei-neo-mnimonio-diavaste-ta-pliri-keimena-
analytika
146/454
Figure 108 Annual switching rates for households in Greece
No data is available for annual

switching rate in Greece for the gas
market
Source: CEER data
understand the level and evolution of the affordability of energy in Greece. Due to the three
memoranda signed between Greece and the Troika in 2010, 2012 and 2015, a significant reduction in
the income of the citizens of Greece was observed. In that period, the GDP per capita was reduced by
45%.187 At the same time, electricity prices for both industrial and domestic consumers increased
significantly (29% and 37% resp.) in 2012, due to the introduction of nonrecoverable tax rates.188
Interesting to see is that was an increase in this indicator even before Greece abolished price
regulation. The decrease observed on the expenditures on gas as a share of disposable income in
Greece in 2014 was a result of the agreement between DEPA and GAZPROM EXPORT to decrease the
price of the imported natural gas by 15%. 189
185
186
187
https://data.worldbank.org/country/greece?view=chart
188
189
Ibid.
147/454
Figure 109: Expenditures on gas and electricity as share of disposable income for households in Greece (for
No data is available prior to 2012 for the gas market

prices. When Greece abolished price regulation, there was an increase by 17% in the energy and supply
component, which afterwards remained almost constant. Similarly, there was a 47% increase in the
taxes and levies component in 2012, and another increase by 46% in the following year. There were no
data available on retail prices for the gas market in Greece.
190
191
148/454
Figure 110 Retail household price for middle consumption bands (DC and D2) and wholesale prices in Greece
No data available for Greece
No data is available on retail prices for the gas market for household consumers
wholesale price. In the beginning of the examined period (2009 – 2011) the mark-up for the households’
electricity market was decreasing, while in the following years it was increased substantially.
192
193
2014
149/454
Figure 111 Mark-ups for Greece, middle consumption bands (DC and D2)
No data is available on retail prices on the gas market for household consumers

The consumers in Greece, who are potentially suffering from energy poverty, are increasing over time,
as can be seen by the diagram below showing the share of the population with arrears on their utility
bills and unable to keep their home adequality warm. At the same time, a significant increase in
households who are unable to pay their electricity bill is observed. The amount of unpaid bills was
estimated at €1.3 billion in 2014. 194 These two reasons have resulted in an increase of the households
benefited by social tariffs in the same period, as shown in Figure 8. The high rate of arrears on utility
bills was mainly caused by the continuous recession, but also in PPC has implemented a 15% reduction
in electricity bills on those who pay on time, to incentivise their customers to pay their bills on time.195
At the same time, the energy component in retail prices has increased in the last years even for those
who have the lowest consumption, (i.e. Band DA) even though social tariffs in theory aim to reduce the
burden of energy prices on the households.
Figure 112 Electricity price components for Band DC, the inability to keep home adequately warm and arrears
on utility bills in Greece
194
195
https://www.dei.gr/el/oikiakoi-pelates/xrisimes-plirofories-gia-to-logariasmo-sas/ekptwsi-15-kai-evnoikis-rythmisis-
ton-ofeilon/ekptwsi-15-se-epaggelmaties-epixeiriseis-noikokuri
150/454
Source: Eurostat
It is important to note, that in Greece vulnerable consumers are considered families with low income,
families with 3 children, long and short - term unemployed and people living on medical support.196

The overall level of consumer satisfaction seems to be higher for gas than for electricity. It is
interesting though, that in years when the number of consumers who experienced at least one solved
problem, the percentage of satisfied consumers reduced (though the opposite would be expected).
That was observed in both markets (from 2011 to 2012 in electricity market and 2010 to 2011 in gas
market).
196
https://www.ceer.eu/documents/104400/5988265/C17_NR_Greece-EN.pdf/8d93e7c7-7533-7739-0ff2-
0815975c0b20
151/454
Figure 113 General level of satisfaction with the industry and the percentage of people who experienced at
least one problem in Greece for households
The fall in the score of trust of consumers in electricity suppliers to respect the rules and regulations
protecting consumers can be attributed to the economic scandal that was revealed in 2011. 198 In 2014,
consumers’ satisfaction for the electricity market in Greece was the 2nd lowest in the EU.199 In contrast
to that, the gas market in Greece was more than 4 points above the EU average (78.5 vs. 74.1), which
corresponded to 6th highest position in EU.200
197
198
https://energypress.gr/news/energa-hellas-power-o-lavyrinthos-ton-offshore-poy-ekryve-256-ekat
199
200
Ibid.
152/454
Figure 114 Ability of consumers to compare products or services201, trust of consumers in suppliers202 and
perceived ease of switching203 in Greece
Consumer choice
The table below provides an overview of key indicators regarding consumer choice, indicating that
Greek households’ consumers do not have enough choice in some aspects of the electricity market
(which could be an indication of an immature market).
Table 9-1 Consumer choice in Greece (electricity, households)
Answer
Certified green offers available in 2015 (CC04) No
-
-
(CC17)
-
etc.) (CC18)
As shown in the figure below, one can also see that switching may lead to savings (which were over 5%
of the energy bill in 2015 and were increased to almost 7% in 2016).
201
202
153/454
Figure 115 Percentage of the current energy bill which could be saved by switching supplier in Greece

The figure below shows the type of offers available for electricity, the majority of which have variable
prices (56%), while 22% has a fixed price. There is no information available for the gas market.
Figure 116 Type of offers for households in Greece
9.2 Non-Household Price Regulation in Greece
Greece phased out energy price regulation for non-households starting from 2011 for electricity,
but continues to have price regulation for gas.
Greece applied price regulation for the non-household electricity market until 2011. Until 2013, a
continuous reduction of the electricity consumption under regulated prices was observed. On the other
hand, in the gas market Greece was using price regulation until 2016 and therefore the gas consumption
was almost constant for the examined period.
154/454
Figure 117 Non-household price regulation in Greece from 2008 to 2016
Source: CEER data

the wholesale prices. In the period 2009 to 2011 and 2014 to 2016 the retail and wholesale market
followed the same trend. On the other hand, in the period 2011 to 2014 wholesale prices were
decreasing until 2013 and then increased, while retail prices first increased in 2012, and then remained
almost constant until 2014. No data were available for the Greek gas market.
Figure 118 Industry retail price components for middle bands (ID and I3) and wholesale prices in Greece (ES,
NC, TL, PG07)
155/454
Current tariffs for low consumption band are below the energy cost. The difference is accumulated by
the dominating supplier (PPC) and covered by the tariffs of commercial users and residential users with
large consumption.205
Figure 119 Mark-ups for Greece, middle consumption bands (ID and I3)
Note that data is not available for the gas market apart from 2014 and 2015.
204
2014
205
156/454
9.3 Tariff deficit in Greece
Greece had a tariff deficit in 2014 in their special account for renewable energy. A suppliers’
charge was introduced in 2016, resulting in an expected surplus of €256 million by end 2018 in
the special account for RES.
Greece faced a deficit in their special account for renewable energy (RES account), which was
estimated at €700 million in early 2014. 206 The deficit was caused by the large investment in RES,
especially in PVs which were subsidised in the form of feed-in-tariffs, which did not take into account
the reduction of the cost of the technology.207 Electricity bills include a RES levy, named Specific Fee
for the Reduction of Gaseous Pollutant Emissions (Ειδικό Τέλος της Μείωσης των Eκπομπών Aερίων
Ρύπων (ΕΤΜΕΑΡ)). Due to the ongoing economic crisis, it was not possible to increase the RES levy to
cover the deficit. Therefore, the authorities allocated other sources to the special account for RES,
such as revenues from the sale of unused CO2 allowances or the implementation of a levy from the
production of electricity from lignite. 208 A suppliers’ charge (Χρέωση προμηθευτή) was introduced in
August 2016. It is a contributory charge that suppliers are paying to offset for the cheaper electricity
they are buying due to the integration of RES in the network. The result is that the special account for
RES is estimated to have a surplus by €256 million by the end of 2018. 209
10 Factsheet: Spain
This factsheet presents the findings for Spain for the ‘Study on energy prices, costs and subsidies’. The
indicators presented are based on the database compiled for the study and includes data up to 2016.
The text, on the other hand, presents current developments at national level. The factsheet has been
reviewed by an NRA representative and data has been adjusted accordingly.
10.1 Household Price Regulation in Spain
Spain still has energy price regulation for households in place both for electricity and gas, though
the share of consumers under price regulation has decreased substantially in the past years.
The regulated prices in the gas sector are called TUR (last resort supply tariffs). Since July 2009, only
residential consumers with up to 50 000 KWh/year and connected to pipelines with a pressure equal to
or smaller than 4 bar are supplied voluntarily at last resort tariffs. The number of customers supplied
206
Ibid.
207
Ibid.
208
Ibid.
209
http://www.lagie.gr/fileadmin/groups/EDSHE/MiniaiaDeltiaEL/JAN_FEB_01_02_2018_DELTIO_ELAPE_v1.1_04.04.20
18.pdf
157/454
gas at regulated tariff continues the decreasing trend started in 2010. At the end 2017, it represented
21% of consumers. 210
In the electricity sector, TUR tariffs which were available for consumers with up to 10kW for electricity
have been replaced by the PVPC (Voluntary prices for the small consumer)211 which is a spot price pass-
through and access tariff with a regulated margin on top (I.e. it’s a regulated dynamic price contract).
As from 2014, the last resort regulated tariff for small consumers disappeared 212 and instead, small
consumers can opt to be supplied at the voluntary price for small consumers (PVPC). At the end 2017, it
represented 40% of consumers.210
Figure 120 Household price regulation in Spain from 2008 to 2016
Source: CEER data
The PVPC model embeds social tariffs (called 'bono social'). It allows small consumers 213 to get various
levels of discounts on the electricity prices (-25%, -40%, -50%) which are capped by a monthly
consumption. The consumption cap to which the discounts are applicable increases according to the
number of children in the households while the share of the discounts depends on the degree of
vulnerability of the consumers. The discounts can be applied to any household that qualifies as a
'vulnerable consumer' (-25% discount) or 'severe vulnerable consumer' (-40% discount) depending upon
210
Private communication with the regulator CNMC (2018).
211
The Act 24/2013 of the Power Sector and the Royal Decree 216/2014 modified the regime of the last resort supply
and introduced the "voluntary price for small consumers" (known by the acronym in Spanish: PVPC) for consumers
below 10 KW. Source: IDAE (2017), available from:
http://www.idae.es/sites/default/files/estudios_informes_y_estadisticas/tarifas_reguladas_julio_2017.pdf and CNMC
(2017), Spanish energy regulator’s national report to the EC 2017 available from:
https://www.ceer.eu/documents/104400/5988265/C17_NR_Spain-EN.pdf/08292859-f5b9-02fb-d803-128ac897e7ea
212
As from 1 st April 2014, last resort tariffs are only available to: i) vulnerable consumers and ii) consumers that not
having the right to be supplied under the PVPC regime, do not have a free market supply contract in force.
213
Consumers with a capacity lower than 10kw
158/454
the number of children in the household, the average annual income of the household (compared with
official income thresholds set by the legislation) and the working status of the head of the household (if
retired). Regional/local administration can also grant the category of 'consumers in risk of social
exclusion' to specific households which will entitle the household to the maximum discount (-50%). In
October 2017 the PVPC model was modified, and now eligibility criteria consider only income and
family size, instead of the connection capacity, reducing the number of eligible households.214
The database shows that the share of households under social tariffs for electricity is decreasing more
slowly in the last years. At the end 2017, the social tariff represent transitorily approximately 8% of
consumers. This is significantly lower than the share of households under price regulation for
electricity. Due to the changes in eligibility criteria for the social tariff, the share for social tariffs
could decrease by a quarter 215, reaching thus approximately 6% by 2018. Further, the database shows
no social tariffs for gas.
Figure 121 Household social tariffs in Spain (VC03a, VC03b)
No social tariffs on the gas market for

household consumers
Source: CEER data

For both electricity and gas (in households), we see that the three largest suppliers have had over 80%
of the market consistently over the last years. At the same time, there has been a constant increase in
the number of active suppliers 216.
214 Royal Decree 897/2017, of 6 October, which regulates the figure of the vulnerable consumer, the social bond and other
protective measures for domestic consumers of electricity.
215
216
Suppliers which report activity to CNMC in 2017 amounted to 290 in electricity sector and 58 in natural gas sector.
159/454
Figure 122: Number of suppliers and market shares in Spain
Source: CEER data
The figures below show the annual switching 217 rates in households for both electricity and gas, which
in both cases have increased from below 5% to up to almost 13% in 2013 for electricity and 19% in 2012
for gas. This was followed by another decrease, but levels remained above 5%. Increased switching
levels may be seen as a driver of competition, enabling changes in market concentration. Moreover, the
movement of consumers from regulated retail markets to liberalized ones can explain up to half of the
switching rates,218 explaining thus the continuous decrease of Spanish households with regulated
electricity and gas prices
Figure 123 Annual switching rates for households in Spain
217
218
CNMC (2017), Spanish energy regulator's national report to the European commission 2017
160/454
Source: CEER data
According to the CNMC219, the average switching rate in 2017 (combined for households and industry)
was 10.8% for the electricity sector and also 9.8% for the gas sector (higher than the numbers reported
above).220 It further provided the following split for household customers.
Table 10-1 Switching rates for household customers in 2017.
Segment Electricity Gas

Households 10.3% 9.7%
Source: CNMC (2018)
and for gas those who consume between 20GJ and 200 GJ per year).222 This indicator shows the
understand the level and evolution of the affordability of energy in Spain. In Spain, the share of
expenditures on electricity is slightly higher than the EU average of around 4%, despite its regulated
prices; while for gas I is very close to the 1% EU average expenditure..
219
Spain’s National Commission on Markets and Competition (CNMC in Spanish)
220
CNMC (2018), Informe anual de supervisión de los cambios de comercializador – Año 2017. -Available from:
https://www.cnmc.es/sites/default/files/2095743_29.pdf
222
161/454
Figure 124: Expenditures on gas and electricity as share of disposable income for households in Spain (for
prices. It is interesting to see that for Spain, from 2013 onwards, there was a big increase in the
(Eurostat) energy component which does not seem in line with the wholesale prices. This is due to the
inclusion of policy related costs. For comparison, we include the energy component for electricity as
reported in DG ENER’s ad-hoc data.
224
162/454
Figure 125 Retail household price for middle consumption bands (DC and D2) and wholesale prices in Spain
gas and electricity retail price)225 and EMOS (wholesale price)
wholesale price.
It is important to highlight that there is a lack of cost harmonization in the energy retail component. The energy
component reported to Eurostat by Spain includes other cost elements not directly related with energy and supply,
namely:
• Policy Support Costs (since 2013). Before 2012 Spain reported its Policy Support Costs (e.g. RES support
schemes, social policy costs, tariff deficit annuities, etc.) in the network costs. From 2013 onwards, Spain
started reporting policy and support costs in the energy and supply component (although they are recovered as
part of the third-party access tariffs, they were no longer attributable to the network component)
• Capacity remuneration mechanisms, which are recovered through a variable term.
• Market exchange and system operator costs, which are recovered through a variable term.227
225
226
2014
227
Information provided bilaterally by a Spanish stakeholder.
163/454
In other countries, policy costs are usually allocated in the tax component, as established in the Eurostat
regulation. 228 In order to address this lack of harmonization, an additional data set has been used only for Spain
to calculate the mark-ups (ad-hoc data provided by DG ENER).229
The additional costs included in the energy component may give a higher mark-up than in reality (both for the
household and non-household sectors). The calculation also neglects the energy losses attributable to domestic
consumers, even if they must also bear these costs (energy losses are estimated at 19% for electricity households
in Spain, 1% for gas). However, the approach introduced above is used in this study across all MSs to allow for
consistency. A different methodology, used by the CNMC230, estimated for 2016 an average mark-up between 25
and 30 €/MWh for electricity in the residential sector (compared to 17 and 20 €/MWh in 2015).231 For the segment
of households under the PVPC regulated prices, the mark-up for electricity was estimated between 26 and 32
€/MWh compared to 16 and 19 €/MWh in 2015. 232 These values are closer to those presented above calculated
with the ad-hoc data instead of Eurostat than the regulated prices for households under the PVPC was 6 €/MWh in
2016,
Further, the Spanish government sets a commercial fixed and variable margin for those suppliers delivering
energy at regulated prices.233
228
Regulation (EU) 2016/1952 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on European
statistics on natural gas and electricity prices and repealing Directive 2008/92/EC. Available from:
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/fa2f1139-ac92-11e6-aab7-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
229
Other studies, such as Energy prices and costs in Europe report [COM(2016) 769 final] and by ACER’s Annual
Report on the Results of Monitoring the Internal Electricity and Gas Markets in 2015, have also taken different values
for Spain’s energy and supply component for energy prices.
230
231
CNMC (2016), Informe de supervisión del mercado minorista de electricidad. Available from:
232
233
Orden ITC/1660/2009, de 22 de junio, por la que se establece la metodología de cálculo de la tarifa de último
recurso de gas natural. Available from: https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2009-10329
164/454
Figure 126 Mark-ups for Spain, middle consumption bands (DC and D2)
gas and electricity retail price) and EMOS (wholesale price)

The diagram below shows the share of the population with arrears on their utility bills and unable to
keep their home adequality warm. These proxies suggest that the share of consumers in Spain which are
potentially suffering from energy poverty is increasing over time, which warrants further studies. At the
same time, the energy component in retail prices has increased in the last years (even for those who
have the lowest consumption, i.e. Band DA) even though social tariffs in theory aim to reduce the
burden of energy prices on the households.
165/454
on utility bills in Spain
Source: Eurostat
It is important to note, that in Spain the regulation has established the concept vulnerable consumer
(as those who fulfil certain social characteristics regarding consumption and purchasing power) only for
electricity. These customers have to pay last resort tariff instead of the voluntary price for small
customers.
The Act 24/2013 defines the social bonus as the difference between the last resort tariff and the
voluntary price for small customers. The Royal Decree 897/2017 regulates the figure of the vulnerable
consumer, the social bond and other protective measures for domestic consumers of electricity.

In Spain the level of consumer satisfaction is higher with the gas industry than the electricity one,
where the share of consumers which experience at least one problem is also higher. This is confirmed
by the comparison of Market Performance Indicators (MPIs) for the Spanish gas and electricity sectors in
2015, where the latter even experience a slight decline.234
234
EC (2016). Monitoring consumer markets in the European Union 2015
166/454
least one problem in Spain for households
perceived ease of switching238 in Spain
235
236
237
167/454
Consumer choice
The table below provides an overview of key indicators regarding consumer choice, showing that
Spanish household consumers have choices in several aspects in the electricity market.
Table 10-2 Consumer choice in Spain (electricity, households)
Answer
Yes
Yes
(CC17)
-
etc.) (CC18)
As shown in the figure below, once can also see that switching may lead to savings (which were around
4% of the energy bill in 2015, but reached over 10% in 2016).
Figure 130 Percentage of the current electricity bill which could be saved by switching supplier in Spain

The diagrams below show the type of offers available for electricity and gas, most of which are
variable.
Figure 131 Type of offers for households in Spain
168/454
10.2 Non-Household Price Regulation in Spain
Spain had no energy price regulation for non-households in the period assessed for gas and
phased out price regulation for electricity in 2008.
Figure 132 Non-household price regulation in Spain from 2008 to 2016

for non-household consumers in Spain
Source: CEER data

the wholesale prices. Here the factors leading to an increase in the energy and supply price component
due to the inclusion of policy related costs must also be considered, as described in the section on
regulated prices for households.
169/454
Figure 133 Industry retail price components for middle bands (ID and I3) and wholesale prices in Spain
As mentioned in the household sector section, the energy component reported to Eurostat by Spain
includes policy support costs, capacity remuneration mechanisms and market exchange and system
operator costs which may give a higher mark-up than in reality (both for the household and non-
household sectors).240 However, the approach introduced above is used in this study across all MSs to
allow for consistency. A different methodology, used by the CNMC241, estimated for 2016 an average
gross mark-up in electricity between 0.7 and 6 €/MWh for electricity in the industry sector (compared
to -1.2 and 1.4 €/MWh in 2015) and between 13 and 18 €/MWh for electricity in SMEs (compared to 8
and 11 €/MWh in 2015). 242
239
2014
240
Information provided bilaterally by a Spanish stakeholder.
241
242
170/454
Figure 134 Mark-ups for Spain, middle consumption bands (ID and I3)
According to the CNMC243, the average switching rate in 2017 (combined for households and industry)
was 10.8% for the electricity sector and also 9.8% for the gas sector. It further provided the following
split for non-household customers.244
Table 10-3 Switching rates for non-household customers in 2015.
Segment Electricity Gas

SMEs 27.1% 21.2%
Industry 19.8% 17.3%
Source: CNMC (2016)
10.3 Tariff deficit in Spain
243
244
CNMC (2018), Informe anual de supervisión de los cambios de comercializador – Año 2017 -Available from:
171/454
Spain had a tariff deficit since the 2000s until 2015. An electricity market reform was introduced
in 2013. As a result, in 2015, after 14 years of deficit, the power system had a surplus of EUR
550 million.
Spain used to have the highest tariff deficit among the EU Member States due to a massive imbalance
between the regulated costs and revenues of the electricity system. Its outstanding tariff debt
gradually built up since 2000 and was estimated at EUR 30 billion at the end of 2013 (or 3% of GDP).245
The revenues from tariffs associated with regulated costs were lower than the regulated costs
(transmission and distribution costs, support for RES, extra-peninsular costs, annuities to cover the
deficit, etc.) which had increased rapidly. The biggest share of these regulated costs corresponded to
the support for RES under the ‘special regime’ which since mid-2000s subsidised RES producers. From
2005 to 2013, the costs in the electricity system grew by 221% while revenues increased by only 100%,
leading to the large cumulated deficit. 246 Due to the high costs in the electricity system, end-user
prices in Spain are among the highest in the EU.
In 2012, stabilising the public-sector finances (including solving the tariff deficit) was an urgent
priority. A broad electricity market reform package was introduced in 2013 and implemented by
2015.247 As a result, the accumulated deficit should gradually disappear over the next 10-15 years. In
2015, after 14 years of deficit, the power system had a surplus of EUR 550 million. 248
245
European Commission (2014), Electricity Tariff Deficit: Temporary or Permanent Problem in the EU? European
Economy: Economic Papers 534, October 2014.
246
https://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/spain2015sum.pdf
247
The reform reduced the remuneration and compensation for the activities in the electricity system by several billion
euros per year and introduced the principle of “no new cost without a revenue increase”. It also introduced a new way
of calculating compensation for renewable energy, waste, and co-generation (combined production of heat and power).
Source: https://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/spain2015sum.pdf
248
http://thecorner.eu/spain-economy/spain-power-system-posts-surplus-in-2015-after-14-years-of-deficit/52393/
172/454
Figure 135 Evolution of electricity tariff deficit in Spain, 2000-2013.
Source: S&P Global (2018) 249
Triggered by the recession, a tariff deficit also emerged in the natural gas system, as falling gas
demand reduced revenues from infrastructure use. By the end of 2014, a tariff deficit of EUR 1,025
million had accumulated. In 2014, the government introduced a new mechanism to gradually eliminate
the accumulated tariff deficit.250
11 Factsheet: Finland
This factsheet presents the findings for Finland for the ‘Study on energy prices, costs and subsidies’.
11.1 Household Price Regulation in Finland
Finland had no energy price regulation for households in the period assessed.
249
S&P Global (2018) 249, The End to Subsidies: The Beginning of a New Era for Spanish Renewables? Available from:
https://www.capitaliq.com/CIQDotNet/CreditResearch/RenderArticle.aspx?articleId=1990704&SctArtId=448388&from=
CM&nsl_code=LIME&sourceObjectId=10410209&sourceRevId=3&fee_ind=N&exp_date=20280213-22:39:51
250
The reform requires all new system costs to be matched by cost cuts or revenue increases elsewhere. Access tariffs
will be automatically increased if the annual tariff deficit rises over a predetermined threshold. Source: S&P Global
(2018)250, The End to Subsidies: The Beginning of a New Era for Spanish Renewables? Available from:
https://www.capitaliq.com/CIQDotNet/CreditResearch/RenderArticle.aspx?articleId=1990704&SctArtId=448388&from=
CM&nsl_code=LIME&sourceObjectId=10410209&sourceRevId=3&fee_ind=N&exp_date=20280213-22:39:51
173/454
There is no retail price regulation or social tariffs for households in Finland.
Electricity suppliers decide prices by themselves without ex-ante approval. However, according to the
Electricity Market Act, an electricity retailer with significant market power within its operating area
shall deliver electricity to consumers and certain other users at a reasonable price (obligation to
deliver). The prices of electricity within the obligation to supply system do not have to be approved by
the regulator before the supplier takes them into use. The Energy Authority may investigate either on
the basis of a complaint or at its own initiative the pricing of electricity.
All gas suppliers have an obligation to supply, setting their prices by themselves without any ex-ante
approval. However, supply tariffs under obligation to supply should be reasonable. The Finnish gas
market will open to competition only in 2020, and there is only one importer/wholesaler. Thus, the
obligation to supply applies to all gas suppliers. 251
It is important to mention that there is neither legal nor operational unbundling of natural gas
transmission network operation in Finland. This is due to an exemption allowed by the Natural Gas
Market Directives because Member States are free to decide that unbundling provisions are not applied
to DSOs with fewer than 100,000 customers (All Finnish gas DSOs fall below the limit). Gasum Oy is
vertically integrated (the only importer and wholesale supplier as well as operator of the transmission
network) and is downward vertically integrated into retail supply.252

The number of active suppliers has remained rather stable for both electricity and gas over the past
years. For gas (in households), we see that the three largest suppliers have had over 90% of the market
consistently over the last years. No information in this regard is available for electricity in the
database, though literature shows that in 2014 it was around 35-40%.253 For electricity, there are four
suppliers in the past years which have more than 5% of the market showing moderate market
concentration; for gas, only one supplier has a significant market share. However, the household gas
retail market in Finland is very small (0.02% of gas consumption), mostly for cooking and not open, so
households do not have the possibility to switch anyway.251
251
Energy Authority Finland (2017), National Report 2017 to the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators and
to the European Commission. Available at: https://www.ceer.eu/documents/104400/5988265/C17_NR_Finland-
EN.pdf/b1048901-ce81-7586-4a9f-5f9fdb4ce5b8
252
253
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/2014_countryreports_finland.pdf
174/454
Figure 136: Number of suppliers and market shares in Finland
For the electricity market, data on the number of active suppliers is only available from 2011 onwards,
and there is no data on the market share of the three largest suppliers.
Source: CEER data
The figures below show the annual switching 254 rates in households for both electricity and gas. There
has been increasing switching of suppliers in the electricity market (which has remained over 10% in the
last few years). On the other hand, as indicated gas markets are not open yet in Finland.
Over 70% of the ~30 000 customers in the Finnish natural gas market are households who buy natural
gas for cooking. However, their consumption amounts to only 1 mcm (0.02% of total consumption).255 At
the end of 2015 there were 22 natural gas DSOs, all of which were also active in retail supply. Further,
many of the natural gas retailers are relatively small having only dozens of customers.256 As supplier
switching is not possible, all gas suppliers are in a monopoly situation within their network area. 257
254
255
256
257
to the European Commission. Available at:
https://www.energiavirasto.fi/documents/10191/0/National+Report+2016+Finland+1518-601-2016.pdf/061a4522-d540-
4870-a72c-80ce72a84b15
175/454
Figure 137 Annual switching rates for households in Finland
Gas supplier switching not possible in

Finland.
Source: CEER data
understand the level and evolution of the affordability of energy in Finland. Expenditures on electricity
have been around 4-5% of disposable income for households in the past years.
Figure 138: Expenditures on gas and electricity as share of disposable income for households in Finland (for
259
176/454
Note: No data available for gas

Given the limited price data for Finland it is not possible to assess the alignment between the energy
component of retail prices and wholesale prices over time and give an indication regarding competition
performance. Similarly, due to lack of data, it is not possible to calculate the mark-ups (differences
between the wholesale price and retail energy price component262).
261
262
2014
177/454
Figure 139 Retail household price for middle consumption bands (DC and D2) and wholesale prices in Finland
Note that there is no data available on the energy and supply component for the gas market.
price (as a proxy for the procurement cost) and the retail energy price component.264 The figures below
show the mark-ups along with the wholesale price.
263
264
2014
178/454
Figure 140 Mark-ups for Finland, middle consumption bands (DC)

No data available for gas
Note that data is missing for the gas market.

Note: Differences in mark-ups to other sources may arise due to differences such as the consideration of supplier
procurement strategies, for ward prices, and the energy price data used.

The consumers in Finland which are potentially suffering from energy poverty seem to be increasing
over time, as can be seen by the diagram below showing the share of the population with arrears on
their utility bills. However, the share of households unable to keep their home adequality warm seems
to have remained at a more stable level between 1 and 2%. There seems to be no correlation with the
energy component in retail prices for electricity which increased up to 2011 and then had a constant
decrease in the last years.
on utility bills in Finland
179/454
Source: Eurostat
Finland does not use the terminology of vulnerable consumers or energy poverty but does recognise
concerns around vulnerability to access to or affordability of household energy.265 In Finland, social
assistance is a last-resort form of income security based on essential expenses, which include electricity
and heating bills. 266

The general level of satisfaction with the Finnish electricity industry has been steadily increasing; while
the percentage of people who experienced problems has decreased over time. Electricity consumers
have an increasingly positive perception regarding the ease of switching providers and regarding trust in
suppliers to respect the rules and regulations protecting consumers. They also have a relatively positive
perception regarding their ability to compare products and services.
No information is available regarding the gas industry.
265
and measures. Available from:
266
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/2014_countryreports_finland.pdf
180/454
least one problem in Finland for households
perceived ease of switching270 in in Finland
267
268
269
181/454
Consumer choice
The table below provides an overview of key indicators regarding consumer choice. Overall, Finnish
consumers have choice in the electricity market, except with regards to dual offers.
Table 11-1 Consumer choice in Finland (electricity, households)
Answer

Yes
programs, etc.)
Yes
etc.)
Figure 144 Percentage of the current electricity bill which could be saved by switching supplier in Finland

The diagrams below show the type of offers available for electricity and gas, most of which are fixed
for electricity. There is limited information regarding the gas offers for households.
Figure 145 Type of offers for households in Finland
Note: Spot-based contracts are a type of variable contract but presented separately.
Source: ACER/CEER (2015).
182/454
11.2 Non-Household Price Regulation in Finland
Finalnd had no energy price regulation for non-households in the period assessed.
Similarly as for households, there is no retail price regulation for non-household consumers in Finland.

Given the limited price data for Finland it is not possible to assess the alignment between the energy
component of retail prices and wholesale prices over time and give an indication regarding competition
performance. Similarly, due to lack of data, it is not possible to calculate the mark-ups (differences
between the wholesale price and retail energy price component271).
Figure 146 Industry retail price components for middle bands (ID and I3) and wholesale prices in Finland
271
2014
183/454
Figure 147 Mark-ups for Finland, middle consumption bands (ID and I3)
11.3 Tariff deficit in Finland
Finland had no tariff deficit between 2008 and 2016.
12 Factsheet: France
This factsheet presents the findings for France for the ‘Study on energy prices, costs and subsidies’. The
12.1 Household Price Regulation in France
France still has energy price regulation for households in place, both for electricity and gas.
Since 2007consumers can opt for regulated or market prices.
184/454
End user price regulation is still existent on the electricity and the gas markets for household
consumers. Since 2007, French household consumers do have the choice between opting for free
market prices and regulated tariffs. Regulated prices (yearly set by the French public authorities) can
only be offered by the incumbents (EDF, Engie and local suppliers (ELD).
Regulated electricity tariffs are established, in accordance with Article L.337-6 of the Energy Code, by
adding (besides infrastructure, transport and distribution costs), the price of regulated access to
historical nuclear electricity (ARENH) 272, the additional energy supply at market price, the costs related
to the capacity guarantee, the routing and marketing costs and the normal remuneration of the
incumbent.273 With the above-mentioned measures (like ARENH), efforts are being made to reduce
market concentration. The regulated electricity tariffs increased slowly between 2008 and 2015 274
partly due to the financing needs of the incumbent, the increase in operating costs and the
modernisation of the (nuclear) power plants. By the end of 2017, 82% of the residential customers (for
electricity) are still on regulated tariffs (= the blue tariff).275
Regulated gas tariffs, in accordance with Decree 2013-400 and Articles L. 445-1 to L. 445-4 French
Energy Code, are calculated based on the price of the gas molecule purchased (99% of gas is imported
in France), infrastructure, transport, distribution and commercialization costs plus the normal
remuneration of the incumbent. In July 2017, however, the highest administrative court of France (le
Conseil d’Etat) repealed the law on regulated gas prices (saying it hurts competition and was against
European Union regulations). By a decision of 18 May 2018, the Conseil d’Etat accepted, in its principle,
the existence of regulated tariffs for the supply of electricity but annuls the contested decision in so far
as it is applicable to all final consumers, domestic and non-domestic, for their sites subscribing to a
power of less than or equal to 36 kVA.
Figure 1 shows the slowly declining share of the electricity consumption of regulated consumers
(households) but still with more than 80% of the residential sector staying with the incumbent (the total
electricity consumption of the residential customers is about 150 TWh). In 2016 the wholesale market
price (presented Figure 153) was lower than the price of ARENH (and as such alternative suppliers could
propose cheaper tariffs based on ordinary wholesale prices). For the gas market, the trend is more
aggressive: the share of regulated customers decreased from more than 90% (in 2008) to just over 50%
in 2016/17.
272 ARENH secures access to a limited volume of nuclear generation (maximum of 100 TWh/year) under regulated tariffs for
alternative suppliers; the ARENH price has been set by the French government at 42 eur/MWh since the 1st January 2012. In
2016 and 2017, wholesale market prices were lower in average than ARENH price. Suppliers did not use their right for ARENH
except occasionally for pure financial optimisation (market prices went higher at the end of the year enabling such
optimization).
273 CRE, 7/2017, RAPPORT ANNUEL A LA COMMISSION EUROPEENNE, Principaux développements des marchés
français de l’électricité et du gaz naturel en 2016 et au premier semestre 2017
274 Regulated electricity tariffs for households – excl. taxes – decreased from nearly 130 eur/MWh in 1996 to just
above 100 eur/Mwh in 2008.
français de l’électricité et du gaz naturel en 2016 et au premier semestre 2017. “Blue tariffs” is the generic name given
to regulated tariffs offered to sites subscribing to a power of less than or equal to 36 kVA. There are “Blue tariffs” for
household sites and “Blue tariffs” for non-household sites. Besides, each site chooses one option of “Blue tariffs” mostly
between the following: base (one price along the year), peak/off-peak (a lower price during the night and higher price
otherwise) or “Tempo” (for household: this option distinguishes three different kinds of days (blue, white and red)
related to how the system is solicited; the colour of the day is chosen by TSO; there are two prices for each colour
(Peak or Off-peak)). See also: https://www.cre.fr/Documents/Deliberations/Proposition/Tarifs-reglementes-de-vente-d-
electricite4
185/454
Figure 148 Household price regulation in France from 2008 to 2016
Source: CEER data
Special tariffs for the protection of vulnerable consumers (exclusively households) were adopted under
the law of 10 February 2000 for electricity and the law of 7 December 2006 for gas, included in the
Energy Code respectively in Articles L. 121-5, L. 337-7 and L. 445-5. From the end of 2013, these tariffs
were further extended to cover all households with an annual reference fiscal income per unit lower
than EUR 2175 276. Consequently, the number of households benefitting from the social tariff increase
further.
For electricity277, by the end of 2017, around 3 million households benefited from the TPN (primer
necessity tariff). Compared to 2011, the number of households benefitting from a social tariff increased
with a factor 6. The costs borne by the suppliers applying the TPN are compensated for these public
energy service charges. The estimated cost of the system, including management costs, is €273.9
million for 2017. In addition to the TPN, the most disadvantaged consumers can benefit from assistance
with the payment of their social services bills via the Solidarity Fund for Housing (FSL).For gas 278, also
by the end of 2017, around 1.5 million households benefited from the Special Tariff of Solidarity (TSS).
As for the TPN, consumers in difficulty can benefit from a service of maintenance of the energy and
with assistance with the payment of their invoices (through FSL). Suppliers who apply the TSS are
compensated for public service charges on energy. The expenses for 2017, including management costs,
totaled €92.8 million.
Important to note is that the social tariffs in gas and electricity disappeared at the end of 2017 in
favour of the energy cheque. The energy cheque (“chèque énergie”) is set up gradually, starting with a
276 or if the resources made it possible to benefit from the “CMU-C” (Complementary Universal Health Cover) or the
“ACS” (Assistance for a complementary Health insurance)
277 Ibid
278 Ibid
186/454
two-year experimental phase. In May 2017, 170,000 energy cheques were distributed to the first
beneficiaries in four departments. The beneficiaries of the energy cheque benefit from the same
reductions regarding the services related to the supply as the customers benefiting from the social
tariffs, namely the free commissioning and an 80% reduction on the travel expenses in case of unpaid
invoice. Costs borne by suppliers as such are included in the scope of energy public service charges.
Figure 149 Household social tariffs in France
Source: CEER data

For both electricity and gas (in households), we see that the market share of three largest suppliers is
over 90% over the last years. For electricity, the market has remained static for most of the period of
analysis with the exception of 2016, which could be explained by the fact that the general wholesale
price went below the ARENH price as mentioned above. For gas, there has been an increase in the
number of active suppliers and a continuous decreasing market share of the incumbents that has
accompanied the reduction in the share of households under regulated prices in the gas market.
187/454
Figure 150: Number of suppliers and market shares in France
Note: Data on the number of suppliers with market shares >5% is only available form 2013 onwards. For electricity:
Active suppliers offering contracts in at least one part of the country (eg. one region) and having at least one customer
+ 160 ELD which are local distribution companies; For Gas: Active suppliers offering contracts in at least one part of the
country (eg. one region) and having at least one customer + 22 ELD which are local distribution companies
Source: CEER data
The figures below show the annual switching 279 rates in households for both electricity and gas. The
switch rate for gas grew steadily as the share of households under regulated prices was reduced. Similar
to what was observed above, the electricity market remained static and was range-bound at a low
range of switching (between 2% and 4%), with valleys in 2013 and 2010 (partly related to special
campaigns and the changing legislation) until a more sustained increased occurred from 2014 on. In
2016, the annual switch rate was 5.4% for electricity and 10.4% for gas.
Figure 151 Annual switching rates for households in France
279
188/454
Source: CEER data
middle consumption bands 280 (those who consume between 2,500 kWh and 5,000 kWh electricity per
year and between 20GJ and 200 GJ per year). 281 The indicator shows the significance of the total
energy bill compared to the disposable income and is therefore a proxy to understand the level and
evolution of the affordability of energy in France. Expenditure as a share of disposable in France was
3% for electricity and 1% for gas.
Figure 152: Expenditures on gas and electricity (incl. VAT) as share of disposable income for households in
France (for middle consumption bands DC and D2) using PPS282
Note: Average yearly household expenditures may deviate with other sources due to factors such as differences
between numbers of households and actual connection points
Competition performance and mark-ups (proxy)
for the efficiency of retail competition. An indication to assess the competition performance can be
done by comparing the evolution of the energy component of retail prices to those observed in the
280
The data on gas and electricity prices separates different consumption bands. This report always shows the middle
consumption bands being DC for the electricity market for household consumers (2.5 MWh – 5 MWh per year), D2 for
the gas market for households consumers (20 GJ – 200 DJ per year), ID for the electricity market for non-household
consumers (2 GWh – 20 GWh per year) and I3 for the gas market for non-household consumers (10 TJ – 100 TJ per
year)
281
282 Purchasing Power Parity (PPS) is an artificial currency. In theory, one can buy the same amount of goods or
services in each country with 1 PPS. It can therefore be used to compare prices across countries, taking into account
283
189/454
wholesale prices. Figure 6 shows the retail component for electricity and gas. The overall retail price
for electricity increased slightly due to higher taxes and levies. Wholesale prices remained more or less
stable.
Figure 153 Retail household price for middle consumption bands (DC and D2) and wholesale prices in France
Note that data is missing for the gas market in 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2016. Also, there is no data available for the taxes
and levies component and the network component for the gas market. For the electricity market, no data is available on
retail prices between 2008 and 2011
Source: Eurostat (components of the electricity retail price), EC ad-hoc data (energy and supply component of the gas
retail price) 284 and EMOS (wholesale price)
price (as a proxy for the procurement cost) and the retail energy price component.285 The figures below
show the mark-ups along with the wholesale price. For electricity, the mark-up is rather stable (around
20 eur/MWh), the mark-up for gas is lower, around 10 eur/MWh. Despite decreasing wholesale
electricity prices from 2012 onwards, there was low responsiveness of the retail energy prices to these
decreases. When working with data from ACER, the situation is different as ACER publishes higher
electricity wholesale prices for 2012 and 2013 (around 45-56 eur/MWh) and slightly lower retail prices.
Consequently, the mark-ups are lower and even just negative for 2012 (-1.1 eur/MWh).
284
285
2014
190/454
Figure 154 Mark-ups for France, middle consumption bands (DC and D2)
Note that data is missing for the gas market in 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2016. For the electricity market, no data is
available on retail prices between 2008 and 2011
retail price) and EMOS (wholesale price)

Figure 8 shows the share of the population with arrears on their utility bills and who are unable to keep
their homes adequality warm. Consumers in France which are potentially suffering from energy poverty
(looking at the number of people who couldn’t adequately keep their houses warm), where increasing
until 2013. From then onwards, there has been a decreasing trend, while the number of people
receiving social tariffs increased in the same period, warranting further analysis of the correlation.
on utility bills in France
For the electricity market, no data is available on retail prices between 2008 and 2011.
Source: Eurostat
191/454

Figure 9 shows that consumer satisfaction increased gradually both for electricity and gas. Also, the
people who experienced at least one problem declined to a level of 5%.
The CRE mentions in its annual report to the EC286 that received complaints mainly concern disputes
relating to invoicing and the estimate of consumptions by suppliers, unsolicited terminations,
essentially resulting technical errors on the part of suppliers, unfair commercial practices, suspensions
supply following a billing dispute or payment difficulties and litigation relating to the connection to
electricity or natural gas distribution networks.
least one problem in France for households
Figure 10 gives an overview of the ability of consumers to compare products and services (in red), the
trust of consumers in the energy suppliers (in blue) and the perceived ease of switching (in green). The
indicators show a rising trend from 2012 on for both electricity and gas. The exception is for the
perceived ease of switching in electricity, which decreased sharply from 2010 to 2012 before partially
recovering only from 2013 on.
français de l’électricité et du gaz naturel en 2016 et au premier semestre 2017
287
192/454
perceived ease of switching290 in France
Consumer choice
The table below provides an overview of key indicators regarding consumer choice. While French
household consumers had available to them more complex offer types such as dual- or green offers in
2016, there is no information for 2014 on the availability of additional benefits (financial or not) or ICT
based offerings to these consumers.
Table 12-1 Consumer choice in France (electricity, households)
Answer
Dual-offers available in 2016 (CC03) Yes
-
-
(CC17)
-
etc.) (CC18)
Note that “-“ indicate missing data
Figure 11 gives an indication of the potential savings (in percentage of the current bill) in the case of a
switch to another electricity supplier. Between 2015 and 2016, the potential savings which could have
been realised on the energy bill by switching between suppliers increased by 1 percentage point.
288
Survey question: “I can choose from a sufficient number of electricity providers?”
289
Survey question: “In your opinion, do consumers trust electricity suppliers with respect to the rules and regulations
protecting consumers?”
290
Survey question: “Which of the following best reflects your experience of switching?”
193/454
Figure 158 Percentage of the current electricity bill which could be saved by switching supplier in France

The diagram below shows the type of offers available for electricity and gas. For gas, a majority of the
offers is still fixed. For electricity, the fixed offers became less than half of the total amount of offers.
Figure 159 Type of offers for households in France
12.2 Non-Household Price Regulation in France
France phased out energy price regulation for non-households starting from 2014 for gas, but
still has price regulation in place for electricity. For electricity, since 2016 price regulation is
only available for consumers under 36kVA though.
For the non-residential market, for the electricity sector, the system changed from 1/1/2016 onwards:
companies that subscribed a contract power higher than 36kVA are, overall, not eligible anymore (to
apply for regulated prices) and thus have to source themselves in the free market (cf. art L 337-9 of the
Energy code). However, as most SMEs are not subscribed at more than 36kVA, most non-residential
consumers (66% at 31/12/2017) are still sourcing themselves via regulated tariffs (representing 12% of
annual consumption). The abolishment of regulated electricity tariffs was carried out in one single step.
The number of sites concerned was significant: more than 400,000 sites had to subscribe to a market
offer before January 1, 2016, nearly three times more than for natural gas. As such, the number of non-
residential sites in market supply increased by 58.6% in 2016, compared to only 39.8% in 2015. By
194/454
1/1/2017, 1,548,000 sites out of a total of 5.0 million were in electricity supply, of which about 56%
was from an alternative supplier.
For gas, the gradual abolition of regulated sales tariffs for professionals began in 2014. The provisions
of Article L. 445-4 of the Energy Code stemming from the law of 17 March 2014 foresee in the gradual
elimination of regulated sales tariffs: by June 19, 2014 for very large natural gas users connected to the
transmission grid; by 31 December 2014 at the latest, for non-domestic consumers whose annual
consumption exceeds 200 000 kWh of gas per year and by 31 December 2015 at the latest, for non-
domestic consumers whose annual consumption exceeds 30 000 kWh of gas per year and for main-use
residential buildings consuming more than 150 000 kWh per year.
The CEER data confirms the gradual declines in the electricity and gas consumption under regulated
prices for non-household consumers. Figure 13 shows that the volume of electricity consumption under
regulated for non-household consumers increased between 2012. From 2013 onwards, the volume
decreased consistently and reached 36 TWh in 2016. For gas, the decline in the consumption under
regulated prices started earlier (in 2008) and reached 1.1 TWh in 2016.
Figure 160 Non-household price regulation in France from 2008 to 2016
Source: CEER data

the wholesale prices. Figure 14 discloses that the energy and supply component of the retail electricity
price increased between 2013 and 2015 and decreased in 2016 to 43 eur/MWh. In the same periods, the
other retail price components did not change significantly. The figure shows similar trends for the
electricity wholesale price and the and the energy and supply component for the electricity market
between 2014 and 2016. Even though this short time period does not allow for robust conclusions, it is
an indication of a relatively efficient electricity market for non-household consumers. This conclusion
195/454
holds for gas as well as the figure shows rather similar developments of the wholesale price and the
energy and supply component of the retail price between 2010 and 2015.
Figure 161 Industry retail price components for middle consumption bands (ID and I3) and wholesale prices in
France
Note that data is missing for the gas market in 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2016. Also, there is no data available for the taxes
and levies component and the network component for the gas market. For the electricity market, no data is available on
retail prices between 2008 and 2011
The mark-ups for gas vary between -4 eur/MWh and 11 eur/MWh. This suggests that, the difference
between the electricity wholesale price and the energy and supply component of the retail price is
rather small in France between 2012 and 2016. For gas, negative mark-ups are not disclosed and the
variation in the mark-ups is smaller (varying between 6 eur/MWh and 12 eur/MWh). Whereas no clear
trend is observed for electricity, the energy and supply component of the gas retail price and the
wholesale price converged between 2010 and 2015 which resulted in a decreasing trend for mark-ups.
For both electricity and gas, mark-ups are lower on the market for non-household consumers than on
the market for household consumers, with energy & supply price components following more closely the
wholesale prices.
291
2014
196/454
Figure 162 Mark-ups for France, middle consumption bands (ID and I3)
Note that data is missing for the gas market in 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2016. For the electricity market, no data is
available on retail prices between 2008 and 2011.
12.3 Tariff deficit in France
France does not have a tariff deficit per se, as the applied regulated tariffs do cover the costs.
However, the CSPE (Contribution to the Public Service of Electricity) is sometimes considered
tariff deficit.
France doesn’t have a tariff deficit, as the applied regulated tariffs do cover the costs (and as such, the
mark-ups are positive). However, the CSPE (Contribution to the Public Electricity Service) which was
instituted by the law 2003-8, could be considered a kind of tariff deficit. The CSPE is a contribution
which covers the costs of support to renewables, co-generation, tariff equalization in non-
interconnected French territories, as well as the social tariff for vulnerable consumer.
Initially, in 2002, the CSPE was set at 3 €/MWh but over the years, it increased continuously and since
2016 it is at a level of 22.5 €/MWh. Since France has an annual consumption of about 480 TWh, the
total amount potentially recoverable by the CSPE can be estimated at more than 10 billion euros per
year.
The legislative modification, enforced in 2016, regarding the financing of public energy service charges,
scheduled (for the period 2016-20) the reimbursement of this deficit. Since 2016, these public charges
are directly financed by the public state budget (by general budget or dedicated purpose fund
depending on the nature of the expense).
197/454
13 Factsheet: Croatia
This factsheet presents the findings for Croatia for the ‘Study on energy prices, costs and subsidies’.
13.1 Household Price Regulation in Croatia
Croatia phased out energy price regulation for households for electricity starting from 2016 but
still has price regulation for gas.
Croatia has recently changed its position with respect to the regulation of electricity prices for
household consumers. In Croatia, household consumers are either supplied by the market or with
universal service (public supply which consumers automatically get if they are not supplied by the
market 292). In December 2016, 89% of all electricity sold to household consumers was under universal
293).
services (as opposed to 99% in 2013 On 1 January 2016, the Electricity Market Act was amended,
and price regulation was abolished for universal services. This change fully deregulated the electricity
prices for households’ consumers.292
While the gas market is in the ongoing process of deregulation, price regulation is still existent on the
gas market for household consumers supplied under public service. In Croatia, consumers are
supplied by the market or with public service (gas supply for households’ consumers under regulated
prices and gas supply for energy entities which use gas for generating thermal energy). In 2016, 24% of
the total natural gas consumption was supplied using public service, a category which excludes gas for
generating thermal energy following the 2018 Gas Market Act.294 Thus, about a quarter of the total
natural gas consumption was under regulated prices. For the suppliers who supplied the consumers
under regulated prices, the Croatian Energy Regulatory Agency (HERA) set a price cap.292
The first panel in figure 1 confirms the situation on price regulation on the electricity market for
household consumers in Croatia. In 2011, 100% of the electricity consumers were under regulated
prices. The shares of regulation started to fall in 2014 and reached zero in 2016. Effective liberalization
of the household gas market started in 2016, although consumers had the right to switch suppliers since
2008,295 and thus the second panel indicates all these households were still regulated in 2016.
Croatia does not have social tariffs for either the electricity market or the gas market for household
consumers.
292 Croatian Energy Regulatory Agency (2016) Annual Report. Available at:
https://www.ceer.eu/documents/104400/3736793/C16_NR_Croatia-EN/79221bc5-9c36-9351-5d47-ff678a330743
https://www.hera.hr/english/docs/HERA_Annual_Report_2013.pdf
294
Gas Market Act (OG No. 18/18)
295
Private communication with the NRA
198/454
Figure 163 Household price regulation in Croatia from 2008 to 2016
Note that data is not available for the electricity market between 2008 and 2010
Source: CEER data

Between 2008 and 2011, there was a single supplier of electricity to household consumers. This
increased to seven suppliers in 2012 and another new entrant appeared one year later. It should be
noted that the new suppliers are all fairly small as the market share of the incumbent supplier remains
above 91% (as can be seen in the figure below). These numbers suggest that there is relatively few
competition on the Croatian market and one supplier has much market power. With respect to the gas
market for household consumers, the number of suppliers is significantly higher, but decreasing (from
38 in 2008 to 34 in 2016). Meanwhile, the market share of the three largest suppliers is increasing. In
contrast to the electricity market, there are three relatively large suppliers of gas for household
consumers (with more than 5% market share).
Figure 164: Number of suppliers and market shares in Croatia
199/454
Source: CEER data
show that switching rates vary between 2.4% and 3.6% on the electricity market. This implies that,
despite the entrance of the new electricity suppliers, most consumers have not switched between
supplier. The tendency not to switch between suppliers is even stronger on the gas market. Although
there were 34 suppliers of gas in 2016, the switching rate was only 0.34% in that same year. These low
percentages show that household consumers on both markets do not switch often between suppliers
which could be another indication of relatively little competition on the electricity and gas markets for
household consumers in Croatia.
Figure 165 Annual switching rates for households in Croatia
Note that no data was available for the electricity market before 2014 and for the gas market before
2016
Source: CEER data
296
298
200/454
understand the level and evolution of the affordability of energy in Croatia. The expenditures of
Croatian household consumers on energy as a share of their disposable income is rather large. In fact,
almost 10% of the disposable income was spend on either electricity or gas consumption in 2012.
Although data is only available for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012, it is noteworthy that the
expenditures on energy have increased in this short period (as a total, but also individually for
electricity and gas). This increase could be driven by the increased energy and supply component of the
retail prices for electricity and gas (see figure 6). Unfortunately, the data does not allow one to
disclose a possible effect of price deregulation on the expenditures on energy.
Figure 166: Expenditures on gas and electricity as share of disposable income for households in Croatia (for
No data is available for 2008, 2009 and 2013-2016

prices. It is interesting to see that for Croatia, the energy and supply component of the retail
electricity price increased significantly in 2012 (by 21.8%) compared to 2011. In the subsequent years,
this component gradually decreased and almost reached the pre-2012 level in 2016. Also, the taxes and
levies component and the network costs component experienced a significant increase in 2012. In
contrast to the energy and supply component, these price increases have not yet been reversed causing
300
201/454
an increase in the total retail electricity price of 16.1% between 2011 and 2016. The energy and supply
component of the retail gas price has increased gradually over time (except in 2016). The total increase
between 2008 and 2015 was 81.2%. At the same time, the wholesale prices for gas decreased steadily
after 2012.
Figure 167 Retail household price for middle consumption bands (DC and D2) and wholesale prices in Croatia
Wholesale price data is not available for the electricity market. Also, data is not available for the
energy and supply component on the gas market in 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2016. Besides, there is no
The NRA provided different data which indicate lower values for the energy and supply component
prices than Eurostat data. However, a similar increase and decrease pattern is observable, albeit with
a later peak.302
Figure 168 Wholesale and Energy and Supply prices for household consumers
HOUSEHOLD CONSUMERS 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Wholesale (EUR/MWh) 15,28 18,90 24,08 23,92 27,63 31,37 24,14 23,00 20,17
Energy and Supply (EUR/MWh) 16,42 20,04 25,35 25,18 28,88 32,61 25,85 24,93 22,36
Mark up EUR/MWh 1,14 1,15 1,27 1,27 1,25 1,24 1,70 1,94 2,19
Source: National Regulatory Agency - Croatia
301
302
Private communication with the NRA.
202/454
price and retail energy price component.303 The figure below shows the mark-ups on the gas market for
household consumers along with the wholesale price, using Eurostat and EMOS data. It is interesting to
observe that the mark-ups on the gas market for household consumers have been very low in Croatia
compared to other countries. In fact, in 2008, 2010 and 2012, mark-ups were negative. Only for 2015, a
positive mark-up is disclosed. For electricity, as the figure above indicates mark-ups are positive but
low, in the range of 1 to 2.2 EUR/MWh.
Figure 169 Mark-ups for Croatia, middle consumption bands (DC and D2)
No Eurostat data available on the

wholesale electricity price in Croatia
Note that data is not available for the energy and supply component of the retail price for the gas
market in 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2016.
For consistency of country factsheets, the ad hoc data on electricity is presented in Figure 169.

The share of consumers in Croatia which are potentially suffering from energy poverty was relatively
stable over time according to proxy indicators, as can be seen by the diagram below showing the share
of the population with arrears on their utility bills and unable to keep their home adequality warm. The
share of the population which had arrears on their utility bills has decreased between 2010 and 2016.
However, with still about 25% of the population having arrears on their utility bill in 2016, this proxy
suggests that energy poverty remains an important issue in Croatia compared to other countries where
this percentage is generally lower. The number of households with forced inability to keep their homes
adequately warm has experienced a modest increase over time. This proxy for energy poverty is,
303
2014
203/454
however, much smaller in magnitude. It should also be noted that the share of the population with
arrears on the utility bills was closely correlated with the retail electricity price between 2011 and
2015. Yet, where the retail electricity price increased in 2016, the share of the population with arrears
on the utility bills decreased by 4% points in the same year. However, whether or not this deviation can
be explained by the abolishment of price regulation cannot be concluded based on the limited data
period. Croatia defines vulnerable and protected consumers in the Energy Act, Gas Market Act and the
Regulation on Criteria for Acquiring the Status of an Endangered Purchaser of Electricity from
Networked Systems.304
on utility bills in Croatia
Note that data was not available prior to 2010 the two energy poverty proxies
Source: Eurostat

Figure 9 shows the general level of satisfaction with the energy sector and the percentage of people
who experienced at least one problem. Both indicators are used to estimate the consumers satisfaction
in Croatia. Although data is very limited available, the differences between 2013 and 2015 suggest a
positive development of consumer satisfaction on both the electricity and the gas market for household
consumers. On both markets, the level of satisfaction with the industry increased and the percentage of
complaints decreased.
304 Private communication with the NRA (2018).
204/454
least one problem in Croatia for households
Data is only available for 2013 and 2015

Figure 10 is also related to consumer satisfaction as it shows the ability of consumers to compare
products and services, the trust of consumers in suppliers and the perceived ease of switching. Also for
these indicators, data is only available in 2013 and 2015. As in figure 9, all scores have increased in
2015 compared to 2013.
perceived ease of switching308 in Croatia
305
306
307
205/454
Data is only available for 2013 and 2015

Consumer choice
No data is available on the availability of different energy contracts for Croatia.
Figure 11 shows the percentage of the energy bill which could have been saved if consumers would have
switched between electricity suppliers. In 2015, consumers could have saved 6.3% of the electricity bill
and in 2016, 5.5%.
Figure 173 Percentage of the current energy bill which could be saved by switching supplier in Croatia

The diagrams below show the type of offers available for electricity and gas. Most of the offers on the
electricity market for household consumers in Croatia consider variable prices (53%). These are offers in
which electricity prices are, for instance, different at night than during peak hours in the daytime.
Besides, 40% of the offers have a fixed price. Another 7% of the offers on the electricity market for
household consumers uses other pricing mechanisms (or information is not disclosed). The NRA indicates
however that two-tariff meters by 2018 reached 73% of households.309 On the gas market, 100% of the
offers uses different pricing mechanism or the mechanism is not disclosed.
309
206/454
Figure 174 Type of offers for households in Croatia
13.2 Non-Household Price Regulation in Croatia
Croatia phased out energy price regulation for non-households starting from 2009 for gas.
However, Croatia still has energy price regulation for non-households in place for electricity.
Non-household consumers are either supplied by the market or with guaranteed supply (non-household
customers get in this group in case they are left without supplier driven by conditions beyond their
control). Prices under guaranteed supply are higher than market prices in order to incentivise
consumers to select a market supplier. In 2016, 10% of the total electricity consumption was under
guaranteed supply. Price regulation for guaranteed supply was still in place in 2016. 310 Thus, around 5%
of the total electricity consumption in Croatia was still under regulated prices in 2016. In practice,
prices were regulated by a price cap set by HERA.
While the household gas market is in the ongoing process of deregulation, gas price regulation was
phased out in Croatia from 2009 on. The figure below confirms the situation on the electricity market
for non-household consumers in so far that still a small volume of the electricity supplied to non-
household consumers is still under regulated prices. With respect to the gas market for non-household
consumers, the data from CEER indicates that prices were deregulated in 2009. As a consequence, the
volumes of consumption under regulated prices equalled zero from 2009 onwards.
https://www.ceer.eu/documents/104400/3736793/C16_NR_Croatia-EN/79221bc5-9c36-9351-5d47-ff678a330743
207/454
Figure 175 Non-household price regulation in Croatia from 2008 to 2016
No data available for the electricity market prior to 2011

Source: CEER data

the wholesale prices. However, care is necessary as the Croatian NRA started collecting data only in
2014, not verifying thus data from the period of this report.311 The figure below shows that the retail
electricity prices for non-households consumers have been rather stable between 2008 and 2016. The
energy and supply component peaked in 2009 when it reached €51 per MWh. After 2009, the energy and
supply component of the retail price decreased almost continuously (except in 2012) reaching €44 per
MWh in 2016. It should also be noted that the taxes and levies component was very low between 2008
and 2012 (€1 per MWh) after which it was increased to €5 per MWh. The energy and supply component
of the retail price for non-household consumers has developed differently on the gas market than on
the electricity market. The gas price peaked in 2012, after which it declined again. The energy and
supply component of the gas retail price shows a similar pattern as the wholesale price for gas (except
in 2008).
311
208/454
Figure 176 Industry retail price components for middle bands (ID and I3) and wholesale prices in Croatia
Wholesale price data is not available for the electricity market. Data is also not available for the gas
market in 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2016. Besides, there is no data available for the taxes and levies
component and the network component for the gas market.
As the wholesale price for electricity is not available for Croatia, no mark-ups were calculated for the
electricity market. Figure 15 discloses an interesting pattern on the gas market for non-household
consumers in Croatia. In two out of the five years for which data is available, mark-ups were negative.
In particular the large negative mark-up (minus €25 per MWh) in 2008 catches the eye. Driven by the
decrease in the wholesale price, mark-ups were positive in 2014 and 2015.
312
2014
209/454
Figure 177 Mark-ups for Croatia, middle consumption bands (ID and I3)
No data available on the wholesale

electricity price in Croatia
13.3 Tariff deficit in Croatia
Croatia had no tariff deficit between 2008 and 2016.
210/454
14 Factsheet: Hungary
This factsheet presents the findings for Hungary for the ‘Study on energy prices, costs and subsidies’.
14.1 Price Regulation in Hungary

End user price regulation is still existent on the electricity and the gas retail markets in Hungary. Since
the opening of the electricity market in 2003, the retail electricity market has been characterised by a
dual structure: the regulated price segment (universal service) and the competitive market segment,
separated from each other. In 2008, the public utility service subject to regulated pricing (which was
available to all consumers) was replaced by universal service (which is available to a significantly
smaller scope of consumers).313 The consumers entitled to universal service are household consumers
and public institutions.
The gas market, similarly to the electricity one, has a dual structure since its opening in 2004. It has a
segment with regulated prices and another with competitive market prices, with a constant shift
towards the competitive market. In 2009, the public utility service (which was available to all
consumers at a regulated price) was replaced by universal service (available to a significantly more
limited scope of consumers). The consumers entitled to universal service are household consumers,
other consumers with purchased capacity below 20 m3/h, and local governments up to the capacity to
supply the service locations of consumers living in
apartments rented from the municipality. 314
With the termination of public utility service, and later with the reduction of eligibility for universal
service, consumers with medium and low consumption also selected their natural gas supplier from the
natural gas traders. Upon the introduction of the universal service, the regulated price segment
represents only a share of less than 40% of the total natural gas consumption (36% in 2015). 315
Natural gas source offering system

The part of the specific natural gas price taken into account in the price of universal service fees
other than the natural gas domestically produced and sold at a regulated price is specified on the
basis of the natural gas price formula 316 which takes into account several factors.
Keeping natural gas prices low in 2015 required that universal service providers have access to
natural gas at a price lower than the price resulting from the formula. This was facilitated by the
price set by the Authority for gas produced domestically from gas fields set into production before
313
Hungarian energy and public utility regulatory authority (2016), Annual report 2015. Available at:
https://www.ceer.eu/documents/104400/3736793/C16_NR_Hungary-EN.pdf/f4ac301e-ae84-c619-39f2-0e31ce47aeb0
314
Ibid.
315
Ibid.
316 Resolution 29/2009 (VI. 29.) of the Ministry of Transport, Communications and Energy on pricing in respect of
universal service provided on the natural gas market
211/454
1998, which is significantly lower than the market prices. The majority of this resource contracts
was terminated in 2015. Therefore, it became necessary develop a legislative framework for the
new resource contracts. The Natural Gas Act amendments was completed and approved by the
Parliament, and the involved industry players concluded the contracts in May 2015.
14.2 Household Price Regulation in Hungary
Hungary still has energy price regulation for households in place, both for gas and electricity.
Both regulated and market prices are available to consumers in parallel.
In December 2012, it was decided to reduce the electricity prices for household consumers and to
implement a price adjustment at the beginning of 2012. 317 Energy prices were subject to three types of
taxes; an electricity tax, a differentiated profit tax and a crisis tax which was set on energy companies’
taxable revenue and was supposed to expire in 2013. 318
The consumption of the regulated electricity market is rather stable, fluctuating between 10 and 11.3
TWh. On the other hand, in the gas market there was a continuous decline in regulated gas
consumption between 2008 (38.2 TWh) and 2012 (30 TWh), while there was an increase in the period
2014 to 2016, from 29.5 TWh to 36.7 TWh. It should also be noted that the data on the share of
consumption and consumers with regulated electricity and gas prices in Hungary is not perfect (for
instance, in 2011, 90% of the consumption was reported under regulated gas prices, while 100%
consumers were reported under regulated gas prices). Regardless of these imperfections, the CEER data
suggests that between roughly 90% to 100% of the gas market for household consumers was under
regulated prices over the time period.
Figure 178 Household price regulation in Hungary from 2008 to 2016
317
318
Ibid.
212/454
Source: CEER data
Hungary does not have social tariffs on the electricity market for household consumers according to the
CEER data. However, vulnerable consumers are recognised on a social and health-related basis since
2008.319 Vulnerable costumers are those who require special attention due to their social disposition
defined in legal regulation in terms of supplying them with electricity.320 They are supported in
different ways, depending on the category in which they are registered.321 As for gas, a significant share
of households received subsidies for their gas expenditures until 2011, leading to social tariffs being
indicated in the CEER database. This subsidy was phased out in August 2011. 322
Figure 179 Household social tariffs in Hungary
Hungary does not have social tariffs

on the electricity market for
household consumers
Source: CEER data

and 71% of the market consistently over the last years, respectively. In the case of gas, the share has
increased over time, while for electricity there was a decreasing trend which was reversed in 2016. At
the same time, there has been a significant decrease in the number of active suppliers in the gas
market, while for the electricity market it has oscillated in the 3 – 5 range. The increased market share
of the three largest suppliers and the decrease in the number suppliers suggest that both the electricity
319
320
321
Ibid.
322 Private communication with the NRA (2008).
213/454
as well as the gas market for household consumers has not become more competitive between 2013 and
2016.
Figure 180: Number of suppliers and market shares in Hungary
Note: For both the electricity and gas markets, data on the number of active suppliers is only available
from 2011 onwards.
Source: CEER data
The figures below show the annual switching 323 rates in households for both electricity and gas. There is
no data available for annual switching in the electricity market for household consumers, while in the
gas market data is only available for the years 2008 – 2009. In 2008, for the gas market, there were
hardly any switches (0.04%), which was increased substantially in the following year, to almost 8%.
Figure 181 Annual switching rates for households in Hungary
No data available for the electricity

market for household consumers
323
214/454
Data is only available in 2008 and 2009

Source: CEER data
understand the level and evolution of the affordability of energy in Hungary. For both markets, initially
an increase was observed in the expenditure on electricity and gas as share of disposable income for
households in Hungary, in the period 2008-2009 and 2008-2010, for electricity and gas markets,
respectively. Afterwards, a continuous reduction was observed in both markets. Since in the same
period there was only a slight reduction in the GDP per capita 326, that reduction in the expenditures on
gas and electricity as share of disposable income for households in Hungary can be attributed to the
reduction in the electricity prices. 327
Figure 182: Expenditures on gas and electricity as share of disposable income for households in Hungary (for
325
326
https://data.worldbank.org/country/hungary?view=chart
327
328
215/454
prices. It is interesting to see that for Hungary, a continuous reduction was observed in the energy and
supply component of the household electricity prices from 2008 to 2014. This led to a reduction in the
total price especially in the period 2012 to 2014, when the network costs component remained almost
constant. Similarly, the wholesale prices for electricity and gas markets were reduced in the period
2011 – 2016 by approximately 30% and 29%, respectively.
Figure 183 Retail household price for middle consumption bands (DC and D2) and wholesale prices in Hungary
wholesale price. For the electricity market, the energy and supply component was reduced by 42% in
the period 2008 to 2016. The wholesale price had a steeper decrease in the period 2011 – 2014, which
329
330
331
2014
216/454
resulted in almost eliminating the high mark-ups observed in 2010 and 2012. In the gas market, the
mark-ups are minimal, since the retail and the wholesale prices are almost identical.
Figure 184 Mark-ups for Hungary, middle consumption bands (DC and D2)

The consumers in Hungary which are potentially suffering from energy poverty were increasing over
time in the period 2009 to 2012, since there was an increase by 64% in the percentage of consumers
unable to keep their home warm, as can be seen by the figure below. Similarly there was an increase in
the percentage of arrears on the utility bills by 52% in the period between 2008 and 2013.
on utility bills in Hungary
217/454
Source: Eurostat
As mentioned earlier, vulnerable costumers are those who require special attention due to their social
disposition defined in legal regulation in terms of supplying them with electricity.332

The consumer satisfaction for both electricity and gas markets gradually increased between 2010 and
2015, from 67 to 84 and from 64 to 82 for the electricity and gas markets, respectively. The satisfaction
performance of both gas and electricity markets is slightly below the average European satisfaction
score.333 For both markets the percentage of customers that experienced a problem, was constantly
below 20%.
332
333
218/454
least one problem in Hungary for households
As shown in the figure below, the score of the Hungarian electricity and gas markets in the ability of
consumers to compare products or service and their trust on suppliers to respect the rules and
regulations protecting consumers are both gradually increasing for the period 2010 to 2015. On the
other hand, a decline was observed in the perceived ease of switching between 2011 and 2013 and from
2010 to 2013 for the electricity and gas markets, respectively.
perceived ease of switching337 in Hungary
334
335
336
219/454
Consumer choice
The table below provides an overview of key indicators regarding consumer choice. The table below
shows that the costumers have neither the option of duals-offers or certified green offer. This suggests
that consumers have limited options which is an indication of an immature market. However, one
should take the data limitations into account.
Table 14-1 Consumer choice in Hungary (electricity, households)
Answer
-
-
(CC17)
-
etc.) (CC18)
The percentage of the current electricity bill which could be saved by switching supplier in Hungary is
below 1% as shown in the figure below, which means that customers have no financial incentives to
switch supplier.
Figure 188 Percentage of the current electricity bill which could be saved by switching supplier in Hungary

There is no information regarding the type of offers available for electricity and gas. 338
14.3 Non-Household Price Regulation in Hungary
338
ACER/CEER (2015)
220/454
Hungary phased out price regulation for electricity for non-household consumers in 2008, but
still has regulated prices for gas.
The energy price regulation for the non-household sector is similar to the one for households, and is
described above in the introduction. As can be seen in the diagram below, the termination of the public
utility scheme and introduction of the universal service for gas in 2009 had a significant impact on the
consumption of regulated consumers. This switch was carried out earlier for the electricity market
(2008). The electricity market furthermore exhibited since 2008 a much lower share than gas of non-
household consumers under the regulated prices (the universal service scheme).
Figure 189 Non-household price regulation in Hungary from 2008 to 2016
Source: CEER data

the wholesale prices.
221/454
Figure 190 Industry retail price components for middle bands (ID and I3) and wholesale prices in Hungary
Note that data is not available for the gas market in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013 and 2016. Also,
there is no data available for the taxes and levies component and the network component for the gas
market.
On the electricity market, both the energy and supply component of retail price and the wholesale
price are declining. However, as the decline of the energy and supply component is steeper, the two
prices are gradually converging, which results in lower mark-ups. On the gas market, both prices have
the same rate of reduction between 2012 and 2015, therefore the marks-ups remain almost constant.
339
2014
222/454
Figure 191 Mark-ups for Hungary, middle consumption bands (ID and I3)
14.4 Tariff deficit in Hungary
Hungary had financial losses in energy distribution companies in 2011 and 2012.
In 2013, electricity, gas and district heating tariffs for household customers were reduced by 20%,
which were partially compensated by increasing the prices for industrial consumers. The reduced prices
were possibly below the cost, which resulted in losses mainly for the foreign-owned distribution
companies and for the state-owned MVM, which was dominating the market. The reported financial
losses were €71 million in 2011 and €45 million in 2012. 340
340
223/454
15 Factsheet: Ireland
This factsheet presents the findings for Ireland for the ‘Study on energy prices, costs and subsidies’.
15.1 Household Price Regulation in Ireland
Ireland phased out energy price regulation for households starting from 2011 for electricity and
2014 for gas.
Liberalisation of the Irish electricity (and natural gas) markets began in 1999 with the Electricity
Regulation Act, this enabled other suppliers to enter the market and compete with the Electricity
Supply Board (ESB) which was the sole supplier. Restrictions on pricing for ESB for household consumers
were in place until April 2011, when it was deemed there was adequate consumer switching by the
Commission for Regulation of Utilities 341 (CRU) for these restrictions to be lifted. In its last assessment
of tariffs, the CRU’s conducted a formal ex-ante review and public consultation to approve a maximum
allowable revenue request by the ESB, calculated by a formula which included an allowed margin342. In
previous reviews the CRU approved the ESB tariffs, accounting for over-or under recovery of costs.
Price regulation for natural gas was abolished in July 2014 for household consumers. This ended the role
of the CRU in regulating the prices that Bord Gais Energy, the largest, former monopoly supplier, could
charge. Previously the regulation operated in the same way as for electricity, giving CRU the role of
approving a maximum revenue ex-ante with an allowed margin 343.
Transmission and distribution tariff components of electricity and natural gas prices result from the
maximum revenue approved by the CRU for 5-year periods that can be collected from customers 344.
There are annual adjustments to the transmission and distribution tariffs to ensure they remain in line
with the five-year price controls.
341 The Commission for Regulation of Utilities (CRU) is Ireland’s independent energy and water regulator. The CRU
was originally established as the Commission for Energy Regulation (CER) in 1999. The CER changed its name to the
CRU in 2017 to better reflect the expanded powers and functions of the organisation.
342
https://www.cru.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/cer11026.pdf
343
https://www.cru.ie/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/cer09147-gas-annual-tarrif-review-2009-2010-decision-
paper.pdf
344
https://gettingthedealthrough.com/area/12/jurisdiction/14/electricity-regulation-ireland/
224/454
Figure 192 Household price regulation in Ireland from 2008 to 2016
Source: CEER data

For electricity, we see that the three largest suppliers have seen their market share decline from 100%
at the time of deregulation (in 2011) to around than 85% in 2016. For gas, a similar decline is observed,
but this began already before price regulation was removed in 2014. At the same time, for both
electricity and gas there has been an increase (albeit small) in the number of active suppliers, and in
those with a market share of more than 5%. Latest data (July 2018) from the national regulatory
authority (NRA) in Ireland, the Commission for Regulation of Utilities (CRU), lists 12 active licensed
electricity suppliers (9 for households only) and 9 active licensed gas suppliers (8 for households only).
Figure 193: Number of suppliers and market shares in Ireland
225/454
Note: Data on the number of suppliers with market shares >5% is only available from 2013 onwards and
data on the number of active suppliers is only available from 2011 onwards. No data is available on the
number of suppliers prior to 2011
Source: CEER data
show rates of 10-20% in most years for both electricity and gas. For electricity switching rates were high
prior to deregulation in 2009 and 2010, before declining to 2012, since then rates have increased each
year since. For natural gas, switching rates peaked in the year before prices were deregulated but have
been observed to decline since 2014. In both cases around 1 in 6 customers switch supplier each year.
The process of price deregulation for both electricity and gas in Ireland was tied to switching rates,
with the threshold for considering the removal of price regulation linked to the share of the market of
the former monopoly provider.
Figure 194 Annual switching rates for households in Ireland
No data is available for the gas market in 2008

Source: CEER data
significance of the total energy bill compared to disposable income and is therefore a proxy to
345
347
226/454
understand the level and evolution of the affordability of energy in Ireland. This shows that expenditure
shares for both electricity and gas increased in the years up to 2013-14, this is unsurprising as this
period coincides with the worst of the financial crisis and squeeze on disposable incomes that was
particularly acute in Ireland. Since then the share has declined for both electricity and gas, it is unclear
if this is driven by falling prices (driven by deregulation and increased competition) or from increasing
incomes.
Figure 195: Expenditures on gas and electricity as share of disposable income for households in Ireland (for
prices. It is interesting to see that for electricity, wholesale prices have declined by 28% since 2011, the
year of price deregulation, but that over the same period the energy and supply component has
increased by 8%, a significant divergence. Although since 2014 the energy and supply component has
been in decline.
349
227/454
Figure 196 Retail household price for middle consumption bands (DC and D2) and wholesale prices in Ireland
No data for gas for Ireland
Note that data is not available for the gas market. No data is available prior to 2010 on retail
electricity prices
retail energy price component.351 The figures below show the mark-ups along with the wholesale price
for electricity. For electricity we see more clearly the trends highlighted in the previous figure, namely
that the gap between these two prices widened considerably between 2013-2014. The reasons for this
are unclear, although market reports herald a 2% retail price cut by the largest supplier in response to
falling wholesale prices 352, which were down 17% between 2013-2014, this suggests that the benefits of
falling prices were not quickly or entirely passed onto consumers, indeed energy and supply costs
increased.
350
351
2014
352
https://www.cru.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/CER15112-The-Electricity-and-Gas-Retail-Market-Report-2014-
1.pdf
228/454
Figure 197 Mark-ups for Ireland, middle consumption bands (DC and D2)
Note that data is not available for the gas market. Also, no data is available for the electricity market
prior to 2011

The consumers in Ireland which are potentially suffering from energy poverty increased significantly
since 2008 and the financial crisis, as can be seen by Figure 198 below showing the shares of the
population with arrears on their utility bills and unable to keep their home adequality warm. Since 2014
as the economy has recovered these shares have begun to decline, this is also consistent with rising
incomes and decreasing prices as shown in previous figures.
229/454
on utility bills in Ireland
Source: Eurostat

For electricity we observe (see Figure 199) that general satisfaction with the industry has increased
since deregulation (in 2011) from 76 to 81. At the same time the percentage of people experiencing a
problem has also declined from 13% to 7% over the period 2011-2015. Both trends illustrate
improvements in the consumers experience and satisfaction. For gas, the trend was for a decline in
satisfaction up to 2013. In 2015, the only year post-full deregulation the satisfaction level increased.
The trend on percentage of people experiencing problem is volatile but has increased from 2010-2015.
230/454
least one problem in Ireland for households
Note: Ireland phased out gas regulated prices in 2014, not show in graph.
Figure 200 shows three other indicators concerning consumer satisfaction. The scores on the ability to
compare products remain around the same level in 2015 as they were in 2010 for both the gas as well as
the electricity market, with little apparent impact from deregulation. The scores for trust in suppliers
and the ability to compare offers has increased a little over time, as have scored on the perceived ease
of switching.
perceived ease of switching356 in Ireland
353
354
355
231/454
Note: Ireland phased out gas regulated prices in 2014, not show in graph.
Consumer choice
The table below provides an overview of key indicators regarding consumer choice. These show that
despite full price de-regulation begin quite recent in electricity markets that there is already a well-
developed range of offers and choices for consumers. Nevertheless there remain significant potential
consumer savings still possible by switching supplier (see Figure 201), although this declined a little
between the two years for which data was available.
Table 15-1 Consumer choice in Ireland (electricity, households)
Answer
Dual- offers (electricity and gas combined) available in 2014 (CC03) Yes
Yes
Yes
(CC17)
Yes
etc.) (CC18)
Figure 201 Percentage of the current electricity bill which could be saved by switching supplier in Ireland

Figure 202 below shows the type of offers available for electricity and gas, most of which are variable.
No dynamic price tariffs are available.
232/454
Figure 202 Type of offers for households in Ireland
Source: ACER/CEER (2015).
15.2 Non-Household Price Regulation in Ireland
Ireland phased out energy price regulation for non-households starting from 2010 for electricity
and 2011 for gas.
The approach to regulation for non-household prices is the same as for household prices. Only the dates
of full liberalisation of markets are different, namely:
• For electricity business consumers price regulation was lifted in October 2010
• For natural gas business consumers price regulation was lifted in October 2011, around 3 years earlier
than for household consumers.
Figure 203 Non-household price regulation in Ireland from 2008 to 2016
Source: CEER data, country experts assessment

233/454
The first panel of Figure 204 shows that the retail and the wholesale electricity price show similar
trends over the period 2010-2016, with prices increasing 2010-2012 and decreasing since. The energy
and supply component was barely unchanged between 2010-2016, whilst at the same time wholesale
prices declined from 59 EUR/MWh to 44 EUR/MWh (-25%). Looking at the period 2011-2016 a more
positive trend in the relation between the two prices can be seen with the energy and supply
component decreasing by 14 EUR/MWh, with a comparable 17 EUR/MWh decline in wholesale prices
Since deregulation, the contribution of both the network component (+116%) and taxes and levies
component (+197%) to the price has increased significantly, although the energy and supply is still by
far the largest price component (>70% of the total price).
No component level data is available for natural gas.
Figure 204 Industry retail price components for middle bands (ID and I3) and wholesale prices in Ireland
Note that data is not available for the gas market.

retail energy price component.357 Figure 205 below shows the mark-ups along with the wholesale price,
357
2014
234/454
this shows a generally increasing trends in mark-ups over time and since deregulation as the energy and
supply component does not fully or quickly follow the observed wholesale price trends.
Figure 205 Mark-ups for Ireland, middle consumption bands (ID and I3)
Note that data is not available for the gas market and no retail prices prior to 2010 for the electricity
market
15.3 Tariff deficit in Ireland
Ireland had no tariff deficit between 2008 and 2016.
235/454
16 Factsheet: Italy
This factsheet presents the findings for Italy for the ‘Study on energy prices, costs and subsidies’. The
16.1 Household Price Regulation in Italy
Italy had no energy price regulation for households in the period assessed, given that the share
of consumers under social tariffs is considered too low to categorise Italy as MS with price
regulation.
The Italian Regulatory Authority for Electricity, Gas and Water (ARERA358) is an independent body in
place in Italy for the purposes of protecting consumer interest in electricity, gas and water
competition, efficiency, distribution and quality. ARERA is responsible for setting tariffs for electricity
and gas for both households and non-households. The Ministry of Economic Development (MISE) defines
strategic principles of operation for the country’s electricity and gas markets and in 2013 and 2017
published the transformative National Energy Strategy (SEN)359.
The liberalization of the Italian electricity retail market for households started in 2000 with Decree
164, with the different liberalization stages culminating in the law 125/2007 which opened the market
to all household customers. The law simultaneously established a standard protected regime for eligible
households and small businesses who were then unable to choose a supplier. Although this regime still
existed by 2016, eligibility criteria have at moments been reformed, especially with the Legislative
Decree 28/11, which also reshaped incentives for renewables, such as feed-in tariffs. The protected
regime will end in 2019 following law 164/2017. After discussions between the NRA and the European
Commission it was established the protected regime is not considered as price regulation.360
Although energy prices have historically been higher than the EU average, they are coming closer to
converging with the EU average. Competition in the electricity market in recent years was enhanced by
the improved utilization of the electricity network and excess supply based largely on renewables
growth. With regard to gas, successful unbundling of the TSO and new capacity allocation rules have
helped incentivise competition 361.
To finalise the implementation of the EC’s Third Energy Package, Law no. 122 was published in 2016
illustrating provisions for the fulfilment of obligations deriving from Italy’s belonging to the European
358
https://www.autorita.energia.it/it/inglese/
359
2013 SEN:
http://www.sviluppoeconomico.gov.it/images/stories/normativa/20130314_Strategia_Energetica_Nazionale.pdf
2017 SEN: http://www.sviluppoeconomico.gov.it/index.php/it/194-comunicati-stampa/2037349-ecco-la-strategia-
energetica-nazionale-2017
360
Private communication with the NRA
361
236/454
Union. Additional laws are also in place defining electricity and gas market characteristics, for example
legislative decree no. 102 transposing the Energy Efficiency Directive into national law, and Legislative
Decree 257 regarding the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure 362.
Italy faces a challenging energy market, partially limited by interconnection capacities with
neighbouring power and gas markets, but also challenged by positive developments in renewable energy
(which has enhanced supply and compounded price decreases). Overall, in 2016 household and non-
household consumers faced lower energy prices than in the past. Furthermore, it was discussed in the
past whether Italy had a tariff deficit in the electricity sector (primarily related to issues with the
arrival of significant quantities of renewable energy on the market in recent years). However, the NRA
revealed that this is not the case as the cost of support to renewables is recovered through general
system charges.360
With regard to social tariffs for energy in Italy these are referred to as a “bonus sociale” divided into
the “bonus electricity” and the “bonus gas.” The number of households receiving social tariffs for
electricity has declined steadily since 2009, from around 1,000,000 households in 2009 (just over 3.5%
of the population) to around 600,000 households in 2016 (just over 2% of the population). On the other
hand, the number of households receiving social tariffs for gas increased from 300,000 in 2009 to just
over 600,000 in 2011 (just over 3% of the population) and has since declined to current levels at around
450,000 in 2016 (around 2.25% of the population). It is therefore evident that social tariffs are lower for
gas than for electricity.
There is a specific protection policy with regard to social tariffs in place for consumers in remote
areas 363. Furthermore, in terms of protecting consumers, disconnections in cases related to small debts
are not permitted and vulnerable consumers are permitted to pay unexpectedly high bills by
instalment. There are also certain methods in place to protect vulnerable consumers while also
contributing to meeting EU targets – tax reductions are available for investments in energy efficiency
and smart meters additionally help consumers to receive/monitor/manage bills based on actual
consumption364. Incentives for RES, as for other energy policy measures such as "bonus" for vulnerable
customers, are financed by general system charges that are not part of the network tariffs.
Figure 206 Household social tariffs in Italy
362
https://www.ceer.eu/documents/104400/5988265/C17_NR_Italy-EN/34ae6d3c-d928-eef7-6841-7a0b3acbd44c
363
http://www.cerre.eu/sites/cerre/files/Affordability_ResearchPaper_3.pdf
364
http://www.cerre.eu/sites/cerre/files/Affordability_ResearchPaper_3.pdf
237/454
Source: CEER data

The dominant operator for both electricity and gas is Enel, with Edison and Eni in second and third
place. For electricity (for household consumers), we see that the three largest suppliers have held over
80% of the market consistently over the past 9 years. At the same time, there has been a constant
increase in the number of active suppliers from around 225 in 2009 to over 450 in 2016. For gas, the
three largest suppliers had had over 50% of the market consistently over the past 9 years, while also
facing a growing number of suppliers from around 250 in 2009 to almost 350 in 2016. This suggests that,
based on the number of energy suppliers, competition has increased in Italy. On the gas market, the
increase in the number of suppliers has intensified in recent years.
Figure 207: Number of suppliers and market shares in Italy
238/454
Source: CEER data
The figures below show the annual switching 365 rates in households for both electricity and gas. On both
the electricity and the gas market for household consumers, switching has maintained consistently high
rates since regulations were abolished (in 2013 for both electricity and gas). Switching ultimately drives
competition, enabling changes in market concentration, so it does not come as a surprise that relatively
high switching rates (almost 9% for electricity and just over 6% for gas) are in line with high levels of
competition in both sectors. The Trova Offerte (Offer Finder) search system allows domestic users to
easily search for electricity and gas commercial offers based on post code. Portale Offerte will
substitute Trova Offerte in September 2018.366
Figure 208 Annual switching rates for households in Italy
No data available for the gas market in 2008

Source: CEER data
The project consortium has calculated expenditures on gas and electricity as a share of disposable
income for households in the middle consumption bands 367 (for electricity, these households are those
consuming between 2.5 MWh and 5 MWh per year and for gas, these households are those consuming
between 20GJ and 200 GJ per year). 368 The indicator shows the significance of the total energy bill
compared to the disposable income and is therefore a proxy to understand the level and evolution of
the affordability of energy in Italy. Changes in expenditure have been less than 1 percentage point in
365
366
367
368
239/454
each case. General economic conditions are a major factor affecting electricity expenditures as a share
of disposable income, and might be combined with improved efficiency monitoring through smart
metering (Italy was an early adopter and, since full roll-out, has already moved to 2nd generation smart
meters).
Figure 209: Expenditures on gas and electricity as share of disposable income for households in Italy (for middle
comparing the evolution of the energy component of retail prices to those observed in wholesale prices.
For electricity in Italy, the energy and supply component only decreased slightly since its peak in 2012,
to slightly under €100 per MWh in 2016 – meanwhile, wholesale electricity prices have declined since
2012 to just under €50 per MWh in 2016. For gas in Italy, data availability is worse but overall it can be
concluded that both wholesale gas prices and the energy and supply component have decreased since
2012. In 2015, the wholesale gas price was just above €20 per MWh and the energy and supply
component was at just under €30 per MWh. It can be concluded that changes in the electricity price
market have not been significant since 2013 but given the lack of data for gas market prices reaching
firm conclusions is challenging.
369
370
240/454
Figure 210 Retail household price for middle consumption bands (DC and D2) and wholesale prices in Italy
This competition performance section also assesses gross margins made by suppliers by calculating
wholesale price.
From a low of €16 per MWh in 2008, the mark-up on electricity prices increased to €47 per MWh in
2016. This compares to a declining trend in both the wholesale price and the energy and supply
component of retail prices. Wholesale electricity prices declined from €100 per MWh in 2008 to just
under €60 per MWh in 2016. The energy and supply component of electricity prices declined from a
peak of around €110 per MWh in 2012 to almost €100 per MWh in 2016.
Data remains patchy for gas prices and it remains difficult to reach conclusions relating to price
regulation. However, the mark-up for gas was €3 per MWh in 2010 and in 2015 (latest data available)
the mark-up measured €8 per MWh.
371
372
2014
241/454
Figure 211 Mark-ups for Italy, middle consumption bands (DC and D2)
Note that data is not available for retail prices on the gas market in 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2016

The number of consumers in Italy potentially suffering from energy poverty has been decreasing in
recent years, reversing a trend of increases prior to 2013. These trends can be seen in the diagram
below, which shows the share of the population with arrears on their utility bills and unable to keep
their home adequality warm. At the same time, the energy and supply component in retail prices has
remained relatively stable in recent years, even though social tariffs (specifically, the “bonus sociale”)
in theory aim to reduce the burden of energy prices on the households. In 2014 the number of Italians
with low economic capacity receiving access to the electricity-related bonus were 933,000 and those
accessing the gas-related bonus were 625,000. Estimates suggest that up to 3 million people could in
theory gain access to the electricity-related bonus and 2.5 million could potentially access the gas-
related bonus. Various recommendations have been made to increase the reach of these bonuses to
further protect consumers particularly in the realm of big data and smart monitoring373. Vulnerable
consumers in Italy include elderly, disabled, families with small children, chronically ill individuals
using electro-medical equipment and individuals/groups inhabiting old, poorly maintained and energy
inefficient dwellings - this last point is relevant for around ¼ of the population374.
373
http://www.aicarr.org/Documents/Convegni/Relazione%20Fuel%20Poverty_def.pdf
374
http://www.anre.ro/download.php?f=fq59gw%3D%3D&t=wOutwdHbn8%2BcmLPfvrrV5ps%3D
242/454
on utility bills in Italy
Source: Eurostat

The percentage of households experiencing problems has increased for both gas and electricity since
2012, although for electricity there was a minor decline in problems experienced between 2013 and
2015. Overall in 2015, around 13% of households experienced problems in the electricity sector and just
under 11% of households experienced problems in the gas sector. Furthermore, in 2015 levels of
consumer satisfaction in the electricity sector were around 70/100, with a similar score for the gas
sector.
least one problem in Italy for households
243/454
perceived ease of switching378 in Italy
Consumer choice
The table below provides an overview of key indicators regarding consumer choice. Italy demonstrates
a degree of consumer choice in all cases shown in the table below. Furthermore, Figure 10 shows the
financial incentives associated with switching energy provider. These points are illustrative of a
relatively open and well-developed market.
Table 16-1 Consumer choice in Italy (electricity, households)
Answer
Yes
Yes
(CC17)
Yes
etc.) (CC18)
375
376
377
378
244/454
Note that “-“indicates missing data

Figure 215 Percentage of the current electricity bill which could be saved by switching supplier in Italy

Figure 11 below show the type of offers available for electricity and gas, most of which are variable.
Figure 216 Type of offers for households in Italy
16.2 Non-Household Price Regulation in Italy
Italy had no energy price regulation for non-households in the period assessed.
In 2016, Italian Law no. 122 was published introducing further provisions for the implementation of the
EU Third Energy Package 379. Italy’s Regulatory Authority for Electricity, Gas and Water (ARERA380) is
responsible for protecting consumer interest, as well as setting electricity and gas tariffs for both
households and non-households. The protection regime for electricity and gas retail is available to
households and small businesses, but is not considered price regulation by the European Commission.
379
https://www.ceer.eu/documents/104400/5988265/C17_NR_Italy-EN/34ae6d3c-d928-eef7-6841-7a0b3acbd44c
380
https://www.autorita.energia.it/it/inglese/
245/454
Italy adheres strictly to energy requirements set out by the European Commission and operates under
the National Energy Strategy set out in 2013 and in 2017.

Figure 217 Industry retail price components for middle bands (ID and I3) and wholesale prices in Italy
Although data for gas is patchy, in 2015 the mark-up was €5 per MWh, marking a slight increase from €3
per MWh before 2013. For electricity, the mark-up was €18 per MWh in 2016, lower than the €27 per
MWh prior to 2013. Overall for electricity, the wholesale price and the energy and supply component
relating to non-households have been declining since 2012. Although less distinct, a similar declining
trend is also notable regarding gas.
381
2014
246/454
Figure 218 Mark-ups for Italy, middle consumption bands (ID and I3)
16.3 Tariff deficit in Italy
Italy had no tariff deficit between 2008 and 2016.
Based on communication with the NRA, there is no tariff deficit in Italy.
247/454
17 Factsheet: Lithuania
This factsheet presents the findings for Lithuania for the ‘Study on energy prices, costs and subsidies’.
17.1 Household Price Regulation in Lithuania
Lithuania still has energy price regulation for households in place.
End user price regulation is still existent in Lithuania on the electricity and gas market for
household consumers. Household customers have the right to choose an independent electricity
supplier, but there is a price cap for the electricity contracts. Apart from buying electricity in the
market or by concluding bilateral agreements, a guaranteed electricity supply exists. This form of
guaranteed electricity supply is available to all customers who did not choose an independent
electricity supplier or in those cases where the supplier fails to fulfil its obligations. 382,383 Public
electricity prices and tariffs are set by the National Commission on Price and Energy Control (NCC)
every year, with extraordinary adjustments mid-year if justified (and are thus also regulated).
Like in the case of the electricity retail market, all household consumers in the gas retail market were
subject to price regulation. Also they have the right to choose alternative supplier but for this moment
there is one large supplier and household do no switch. Based on Article 9 (17) of the Law on Natural
Gas, the NCC approves tariffs for household customers every six months.384 In order to allow for the
possibility of revising natural gas tariffs for household consumers in extraordinary circumstances the
NCC amended its Methodology for Setting the State-Regulated Prices in the Natural Gas Sector in 2014.
Figure 1 shows that the share of consumers with regulated prices in the electricity household retail
market has been 100 percent from 2008 to 2016. The volumes of electricity consumption for electricity
with regulated prices has been fairly steady in the period analysed. Interestingly, there was a sharp
decrease in the share of the consumption of regulated consumers out of the total consumption between
2009 and 2010, but the share of this consumption showed a recovery, albeit not a full one, in the
subsequent years. In the Lithuanian gas retail market the share of consumption of regulated consumers
out of the total consumption was 100 percent from 2008 to 2018. This translates to a volume of
between 1.5 and 1.9 TWh.
382 “Retail Markets Monitoring Report”, CEER, 2017, Ref:C17-MMr-83-02

383 https://enmin.lrv.lt/en/sectoral-policy/electricity-sector-1
384 “Annual Report on Electricity and Natural Gas Markets of the Republic of Lithuania to the European Commission”,
2015, National Commission for Energy
248/454
Figure 219 Household price regulation in Lithuania from 2008 to 2016
Source: CEER data
Lithuania does not have social tariffs on the market for electricity or gas for household consumers

For both electricity and gas (in households), we see that the three largest suppliers had almost 100
percent of market shares in the period analysed (data for 2008 in the gas market not available).
Between the years of 2008 and 2011 only one active supplier participated in the electricity retail
market in Lithuania. A second supplier entered the market in 2012 and in 2013 there were five active
suppliers. In 2013 and 2014 this number decreased to three active suppliers but increased back to five
in 2016. In 2016 the public supplier Energijos skirstymo operatorius, AB held the entirety of the retail
market share including guaranteed supply. 385
The number of active suppliers in the gas retail market was constant between 2008 and 2013, with five
active players in the market. An additional player entered the market in 2014 but in 2015 the number
decreased back to five and in 2016 there were only four active suppliers in the market. In addition from
2013 onwards only one of the active suppliers had a market share greater than 5 percent. The relatively
low amount of suppliers on both the electricity and the gas market is an indication of little competition
on the Lithuanian market.
385
Private communication with the regulator and “Annual Report on Electricity and Natural Gas Markets of the Republic
of Lithuania to the European Commission”, 2017, National Commission for Energy Control and Prices
249/454
Figure 220: Number of suppliers and market shares in Lithuania
Note: Data on the number of active suppliers is only available from 2011 onwards.
Source: CEER data
Figure 3 shows the annual switching386 rates in households for both electricity and gas. Between 2008
and 2016 household customers in Lithuania did not switch suppliers in the electricity retail market
despite being able to do so. In the gas retail market switching are negligible low (with a maximum
switching rate of 0.07 percent in 2013). This behaviour is detrimental to competition as it tends to
promote market concentration.
Figure 221 Annual switching rates for households in Lithuania
Switching rates were zero in all years

between 2008 and 2016
386
250/454
Source: CEER data
understand the level and evolution of the affordability of energy in Lithuania.
Between the years 2008 and 2010, household electricity consumers spent an increasingly larger share of
their disposable income on electricity. This share surpassed 3 percent of the disposable income in 2010.
Between the years 2011 and 2013 the share remained more or less constant at 3 percent of the income.
From 2013 to 2016 the share has been decreasing (which coincides with a decrease in the retail
electricity price in the same years as shown in figure 5). In the years from 2008 to 2016 gas constituted
less than one percent of the disposable income in households. Thus, households tend to spend more on
electricity than on gas in Lithuania. Compared to other EU Member States, the share of disposable
income spent on energy is relatively low.
Figure 222: Expenditures on gas and electricity as share of disposable income for households in Lithuania (for
388
251/454
prices. It is interesting to see that for Lithuania. Figure 5 shows that between 2012 and 2016 wholesale
electricity prices were similar to the energy and supply component of the retail electricity price. The
wholesale price was slightly higher in the years 2013 and 2014. The opposite is true for 2012, 2015 and
2016. It should also be noted that the taxes and levies component of the retail price increased
significantly in 2013.
The energy and supply component of the retail gas price appears to be rather volatile over the
considered time period. Data on the price of wholesale gas is not available and thus, no conclusions can
be drawn regarding competition performance or mark-ups in the gas sector based on this indicator.
Figure 223 Retail household price for middle consumption bands (DC and D2) and wholesale prices in Lithuania
available for the taxes and levies component and the network component for the gas market. There is
also no data available on the wholesale price of gas in Lithuania nor on the wholesale price of
household electricity in the years 2008 to 2011.
390
391
252/454
wholesale price. Slightly negative mark ups were calculated in 2013 and 2014 for the electricity retail
market. In the years 2012, 2015 and 2016 the mark ups were small but positive. Due to lack of
information available an analysis on the mark ups in the gas retail sector is not possible.
Figure 224 Mark-ups for Lithuania , middle consumption bands (DC and D2)
No wholesale prices available for the

gas market in Lithuania

According the Collaboratory for Urban Resilience and Energy, Lithuania might be one of the EU
countries most afflicted by energy poverty.393 Lithuania currently does not have a national definition of
energy poverty, however the term is generally applied to those individuals or households who are
unable to adequately heat or provide other required energy services in their homes at affordable
costs.394 According to the EU Survey on Income and Living Conditions 395 in 2015, 31.1 percent of
inhabitants were not able to afford keeping their houses adequately warm and 17 percent indicated
392
2014
393 https://urban-energy.org/2017/06/07/an-update-on-energy-poverty-situation-in-lithuania/
394 “Energy poverty and vulnerable consumers in the energy sector across the EU: analysis of policies and measures”,
Insight_E, Policy Report, May 2015
395 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/microdata/european-union-statistics-on-income-and-living-conditions
253/454
that they were dampness, draughts and leaks. According to Eurostat, single person households suffer
most from energy poverty (43.8%).396
The black line in Figure 7 represents the percentage of consumers who are unable to keep their
households sufficiently warm. A sharp increase in the percentage of such consumers was seen from 2010
to 2011 in spite of the fact that in 2011 the final retail electricity price slightly lower than in the
previous year. From 2011 to 2014 there was a decrease in the percentage of consumers who were
unable to keep their households sufficiently warm in spite of the fact that in those years the final retail
price of electricity increased. Thus, energy poverty might not be exactly correlated with electricity
prices but other, external factors might also affect the ability of customers to keep their households
warm. From 2014 to 2015, there was again an increase in the share of people unable to keep their
households warm. This percentage decreased from 2015 to 2016. There is no clear correlation between
the percentage of arrears on utility bills and the percentage of electricity consumers unable to keep
their households warm. For example, between 2015 and 2016 the percentage of arrears on utility bills
increased but the number of people unable to keep their homes adequately warm decreased.
on utility bills in Lithuania
Source: Eurostat

Figure 8 shows that general customer satisfaction in the electricity retail market for households has
increased over time. The overall score for general customer satisfaction in this market was 75 out of
100. At the same time the percentage of people who experience at least one problem decreased by
396Eurostat, 2017 cited in “Changes in taxation could increase the risk of energy poverty in Lithuania”, ESPN Flash
Report 2017/51
254/454
more than half between 2010 and 2015. The gas retail market for households scores higher than the
electricity marker across the period analysed. The highest score of above 85 was attained in 2015. In
addition, the percentage of people who experience at least one problem was also on decline between
2011 and 2014. Based on the 2014 “EU Energy Markets” report by the European Commission, the scores
on satisfaction are well above the EU average for both the electricity and the gas market. 397
least one problem in Lithuania for households
The trust of consumers in suppliers to respect the rules and regulations protecting consumers is
increasing in Lithuania, both for electricity and gas. The scores in 2010 were lower than 7 and in 2015 it
was 7 and 8, respectively. The ability of consumers to compare products or services has consistently
ranked lower than the trust of consumers in suppliers. From 2012 to 2013 the score decreed from close
to 6 to 8 but decreased to 7 in 2015. Only two data points are available in relation to the perceived
ease of switching. This indicator received a score of about 8/10 on both 2013 and 2015. The scores are
surprisingly high if contrasted with the fact that there has been zero switching in the electricity retail
market between 2008 and 2016.
In the gas retail market, between 2010 and 2012, the ability of consumers to compare products or
services was ranked higher than their trust in suppliers. From 2012 to 2015 the two indicators have
received similar scores which have been increasingly more positive. Data on the perceived ease of
switching is not available.
397 “EU Energy Markets in 2014”, EC

398
255/454
perceived ease of switching401 in Lithuania
Consumer choice
No data is available of specific choices on available energy contracts (such as green offers) for
Lithuania.
Percentage of the current electricity bill which could be saved by switching supplier in Lithuania was
equal to 1.5 percent in 2015 and decreased slightly in 2016. This implies that Lithuanian consumers
could have saved a relatively small share of their electricity bill by switching suppliers (compared to
the EU average). Based on Figure 11, 80 percent of all offers in the electricity retail market are fixed,
the remaining offers pertain to options different from variable or spot-based offers.
Figure 228 Percentage of the current electricity bill which could be saved by switching supplier in Lithuania
399
400
256/454

Figure 229 Type of offers for households in Lithuania (RC03b)
17.2 Non-Household Price Regulation in Lithuania
Lithuania phased out energy price regulation for non-households starting from 2010 for
electricity and 2011 for gas. However, Lithuania still had a very small share of consumption
under regulated electricity prices (under 5%).
According to CEER, price regulation was abolished on the electricity and gas markets for non-
household consumers in 2010 and 2011 respectively. Figure 12 confirms this for the gas market, but
not for the electricity market. Yet, the volume of consumption under regulated electricity prices for
non-household consumers has decreased drastically since 2010. In fact, the low volume of consumption
under regulated prices between 2013 and 2016 suggests that price regulation has had a neglectable
effect from 2013 onwards.
Figure 230 Non-household price regulation in Lithuania from 2008 to 2016
257/454
Source: CEER data

the wholesale prices. The retail electricity price for non-household consumers shows much variation
over the considered time period. The energy and supply component of the retail electricity price
increased until 2014 followed by a decrease in 2015 and 2016. It should also be noted that it is very
closely correlated with the wholesale electricity price which is an indication of an efficient electricity
market. In 2013, the taxes and levies component of the retail electricity price increased after being
equal to zero in 2011 and 2012. The energy and supply component of the retail gas price also shows a
lot of variation between 2008 and 2015, but decreased steadily after peaking in 2012.
Figure 231 Industry retail price components for middle bands (ID and I3) and wholesale prices in Lithuania
258/454
Note that data is not available for the gas market in 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2016. There is no data
available for the taxes and levies component (also for the electricity market in 2009 and 2010) and the
network component for the gas market.
for the electricity market for non-household consumers (the wholesale gas price is not available). The
differential between the energy and supply component of the retail electricity price for non-household
consumers and the wholesale electricity price is relatively small, but consistently positive. This is could
be an indication of a competitive electricity market for non-household consumers.
Figure 232 Mark-ups for Lithuania , middle consumption bands (ID and I3)
No wholesale prices available for the

gas market in Lithuania
402
2014
259/454
17.3 Tariff deficit in Lithuania
Lithuania had no tariff deficit between 2008 and 2016.
18 Factsheet: Luxembourg
This factsheet presents the findings for Luxembourg for the ‘Study on energy prices, costs and
subsidies’. The indicators presented are based on the database compiled for the study and includes
data up to 2016. The text, on the other hand, presents current developments at national level. The
factsheet has been reviewed by an NRA representative and data has been adjusted accordingly.
18.1 Household Price Regulation in Luxembourg
Luxembourg had no energy price regulation for households in the period assessed.
In Luxembourg there are no regulated retail prices for electricity or gas and the retail market is fully
open to competition since 1 July 2007. There are also no social tariffs for electricity or gas.
According to article 54 (3 bis) of the law of 1 August 2007 concerning the organisation of the electricity
market and article 51 (6 bis) of the law of 1 August 2007 concerning the organisation of the natural gas
market, the NRA must, at least once a year, evaluate whether the supply prices for electricity and gas
are compliant with the public service obligations for electricity and gas, and specifically for electricity,
with the required quality of the universal service. The NRA must in particular evaluate whether the
electricity and gas suppliers apply reasonable terms and prices, which are easily and clearly
comparable, transparent, non-discriminatory and published.403

For both electricity and gas, we see that the retail market concentration in Luxembourg is still very
high and has even increased in 2012. In the considered time period, the three largest suppliers had
consistently a market share over 95% in the household segment. At the same time, the number of active
suppliers has been relatively stable, except for gas. In 2016, the Ministry of Economy, which is in charge
of authorising suppliers for Luxembourg, had granted an electricity supply licence to 27 companies, out
of which 14 were effectively active on the Luxembourg market. Despite the “high” number of active
market players at wholesale level the retail market competition remains rather low, with 7 suppliers
active in the household electricity market segment and 4 suppliers active in the household gas market
segment in 2016. There were only 3 electricity suppliers with a market share in volume higher than 5%
(respectively 74%, 14% and 7% in 2016). For gas, the market concentration is even higher.
403 Sources: CEER data – Reports Institut Luxembourgeois de Régulation (NRA)
260/454
Figure 233: Number of suppliers and market shares in Luxembourg
Data on the number of active suppliers is only available from 2011 onwards.
Source: CEER data
Consumer engagement and energy expenditures
The figures below show the annual switching 404 rates of households for both electricity and gas. We
notice that the switching rate in the household retail segment has remained at a very low level, with
less than 0.2% of households switching supplier. The supplier switching rate is in the industrial market
segment much higher than in the households market segment.
Figure 234 Annual switching rates for households in Luxembourg
404
261/454
Source: CEER data
and 5 MWh per year and for gas those who consume between 20GJ and 200 GJ per year).406 The
therefore a proxy to understand the level and evolution of the affordability of energy in Luxembourg.
The share of the electricity bill in the household expenditures has been rather stable during the
considered period, while the share of the gas bill has decreased.
Figure 235: Expenditures on gas and electricity as share of disposable income for households in Luxembourg
(for middle consumption bands DC and D2) using PPS prices407
prices. The wholesale decomposed retail household prices using data from the NRA is also presented.
406
408
262/454
It is interesting to see that for Luxembourg, the price of the energy component has decreased over time
for electricity and gas (in line with the evolution of the wholesale prices). On the other hand, taxes and
network costs have slightly increased for both energy carriers. The commodity share in the overall
energy bill has hence decreased. Further analysis might be needed to gain a better understanding of
the drivers behind the changes in the retail market.
Figure 236 Retail household price for middle consumption bands (DC and D2) and wholesale prices in
Luxembourg
Note that ad hoc data is not available for the gas market in 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2016. Also,
there is no data available for the taxes and levies component and the network component for the gas
market.409
409
The NRA has further specific data for the country in their website.
410
263/454
Figure 237 Gas retail household price for middle consumption bands (D2) and wholesale prices in Luxembourg
with NRA data
Source: ILR (2017), Rapport de l’institut luxembourgeois de régulation sur ses activités et sur l’exécution de ses
missions dans les secteurs de l’électricité et du gaz naturel (components of the gas retail price), and EMOS
(wholesale price)
The competition performance section also assesses gross margins achieved by suppliers by calculating
wholesale price, including using data from the NRA, for gas. The commodity price evolution on the
household market segment seems in general in line with the wholesale prices. According to a similar
analysis performed by the NRA, gross margins for electricity amounted in 2011-2015 between 14.2
€/MWh (2011) and 25.3 €/MWh (2014) (Source : report ILR December 2016). Gross margins for gas also
decreased according to the NRA, to 14 €/MWh in 2016. The NRA has at that moment also compared the
price levels applied in Luxembourg with those in neighbouring countries. On the basis of both analyses,
the NRA did not make critical comments with regard to the retail price levels applied in Luxembourg.
There is hence in Luxembourg no visible impact of the high market concentration and low supplier
switching level on the gross margins of suppliers.
411
2014
264/454
Figure 238 Mark-ups for Luxembourg, middle consumption bands (DC and D2)
Note that ad hoc data is not available for the gas market in 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2016
Figure 239 Mark-ups for Luxembourg, D2 gas consumption band with regulator data
265/454
(wholesale price). Differences in mark-ups to other sources may arise due to differences such as the consideration of
supplier procurement strategies, forward prices, and the energy price data used.

The number of consumers in Luxembourg which are potentially suffering from energy poverty is slightly
increasing over time, as can be seen in the diagram below showing the share of the population with
arrears on their utility bills and unable to keep their home adequality warm. However, in general the
levels of energy poverty in Luxembourg are lower than those in most other EU Member States. As
mentioned in the first section, there are in no social tariffs for electricity or gas. Yet, energy poverty is
addressed by generic social security and energy efficiency policy measures.
on utility bills in Luxembourg
Source: Eurostat

The consumers’ satisfaction with regard to supply of electricity and gas has in Luxembourg increased
over time and has reached a high level, notwithstanding the fact that the number of consumers facing
at least one problem has increased for gas.
The perceived ease of switching is very low, and can explain the low switching rates in Luxembourg,
despite the fact that suppliers are legally not allowed to charge any specific switching costs.
266/454
least one problem in Luxembourg for households
perceived ease of switching415 in Luxembourg
412
413
414
267/454
Consumer choice
The table below provides an overview of key indicators regarding consumer choice. Households can in
Luxembourg effectively opt for green products, but not dual supply contracts from national suppliers.
The offerings of additional energy related services to households is still rather limited in Luxembourg;
the ongoing installation of smart meters will however enhance the opportunities for offering new
services. Since 1 July 2016, new connections are equipped with smart meters, while the existing meters
are currently being replaced systematically. In principle their replacement will be finalised by end 2019
for electricity and by end 2020 for gas. At that moment aggregators can also become more active on
the Luxembourg household market.
Table 18-1 Consumer choice in Luxembourg (electricity, households)
Answer
-
programs, etc.)
Availability of non-financial benefits in 2014 (home insurance, free maintenance of water boilers, etc) -
-
etc.)
The potential benefits of switching electricity supplier seem rather limited in Luxembourg, which can
explain, along with the low perceived ease of switching, the low effective switching rates.
Figure 243 Percentage of the current electricity bill which could be saved by switching supplier in Luxembourg
(PS05a)

The diagrams below show the type of offers available in 2015 for electricity and gas, most of which are
variable. In 2016 these figures had changed to 21% and 79% of fixed and variable offer in gas, and 33%
and 67% for fixed and variable electricity offers.416
416 From exchange with the regulator (2018).
268/454
Figure 244 Type of offers for households in Luxembourg
18.2 Non-Household Price Regulation in Luxembourg
Luxembourg had no energy price regulation for non-households in the period assessed.
There is in Luxembourg no price regulation for supply of gas or electricity; there is only a legal
monitoring obligation for the NRA to annually evaluate the price evolution (see supra).

The alignment between the energy component of (non-household) retail prices and wholesale prices
over time is also a proxy for the efficiency of retail competition. Therefore, competition performance
was assessed by comparing the evolution of the energy component of the retail prices to those observed
in the wholesale prices.
Figure 245 Industry retail price components for middle bands (ID and I3) and wholesale prices in Luxembourg
269/454
Note that data is not available for the gas market in 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2016. Also, there is no
data available for the taxes and levies component and the network component for the gas market. 417
The competition performance section also assesses gross margins achieved by suppliers by calculating
wholesale prices. The gas price components and mark-up using data from the NRA is also indicated. We
notice that the gross margins in the wholesale market segment are for electricity on average lower than
in the household market segment, while for gas they are more or less at the same level. The price
evolution on the retail market is in general in line with the evolution at wholesale level – thus for the
gas market mark-ups remain stable.
Figure 246 Mark-ups for Luxembourg, middle consumption bands (ID and I3)
417
The NRA has further specific data for the country in their website.
418
2014
270/454
Figure 247 Industry gas retail price components, wholesale prices and mark-ups for Luxembourg, middle
consumption bands (ID and I3) with NRA data
(wholesale price)
18.3 Tariff deficit in Luxembourg
Luxembourg had no tariff deficit between 2008 and 2016.
271/454
19 Factsheet: Latvia
This factsheet presents the findings for Latvia for the ‘Study on energy prices, costs and subsidies’. The
19.1 Household Price Regulation in Latvia
Latvia still has energy price regulation for households in place on the electricity and gas market.
While the government phased out price regulation for electricity starting from 2015, the number
of consumers under social tariffs increased drastically (and is also considered price regulation).
Phase out of gas price regulation started from 2017.
In the electricity sector, price regulation was phased out on January 1, 2015 for the large majority of
consumers. However, at the same time, the number of households with social tariffs for electricity
increased drastically. Since social tariffs are considered as end-user price regulation (as prices are still
regulated for vulnerable consumers), price regulation was not completely phased out in Latvia by
2015.419 Besides social tariffs, the Regulator sets network tariffs; supply prices are set by bilateral
agreements and the price can be fixed or variable (tied to spot price).420 Before 2015, the Regulator
approved tariffs for electricity trade to captive customers - if the trader was not authorized to set
tariffs. Tariffs for captive customers covered costs of generated and imported electricity, including
electricity generated from renewable energy resources, and costs of transmission and distribution
system services, as well as the costs of electricity trading service. According to the Electricity Market
Law, the Regulator authorized former incumbent JSC “Latvenergo” to set the tariffs for captive
customers from January 1, 2009.
According to the legal framework, the Regulator set tariffs for all end-users in the natural gas supply
sector until April 2nd, 2017. The designated supplier was fully compensated for the obligation to supply
natural gas under regulated tariffs.421 In order to fully implement the requirements of the Gas
Directive, amendments to the Energy Law were adopted in 2016. These amendments stipulated that the
Latvian natural gas market would open on April 3rd, 2017. Starting April 3rd, 2017 all natural gas users
have the right to freely choose a natural gas trader; while households have a right to choose to become
a market player or receive gas at a regulated price.422 The supply of natural gas to households (captive
consumers) is ensured by the public trader for the natural gas price set by the Regulator. The natural
gas price for captive consumers is the charge laid down in conformity with costs which are comprised of
the charge for trade service and natural gas trade price, and in accordance with which a captive
419
2014 Annual Report of the Public Utilities Commission of the Republic of Latvia on the National Energy Sector,
Prepared for the European Commission. Available at: https://www.sprk.gov.lv/uploads/doc/ReportEC2014.pdf
420
Sabiedrisko Pakalpojumu Regulesanas Komisija (2017), 2016 Annual Report of the Public Utilities Commission of
the Republic of Latvia on the National Energy Sector, Prepared for the European Commission. Available at:
https://www.ceer.eu/documents/104400/5988265/C17_NR_Latvia-EN.pdf/619a89d2-acb3-cf9a-c3b4-9ddae9be1854
421
422
Sabiedrisko Pakalpojumu Regulesanas Komisija (2017), 2016 Annual Report of the Public Utilities Commission of
the Republic of Latvia on the National Energy Sector, Prepared for the European Commission. Available at:
https://www.ceer.eu/documents/104400/5988265/C17_NR_Latvia-EN.pdf/619a89d2-acb3-cf9a-c3b4-9ddae9be1854
272/454
consumer settles accounts with a public trader. The natural gas trader, who provides the natural gas
trading services to the largest number of household users, is required to fulfil the obligations of the
public trader and is fully compensated for the obligation to supply natural gas under regulated price.
Figure 248 Household price regulation in Latvia from 2008 to 2016
Source: CEER data

No year for the end of price regulation is indicated due to the share of population on social tariffs
Figure 1 shows that, consistent with the deregulation of the electricity retail market in 2015, there was
a sharp drop in the volume of consumption of price-regulated electricity and consequently the share of
the regulated consumption out of the total consumption. Before 2015, all end-user consumption of
household electricity was regulated and the volume of the price-regulated electricity ranged between
1.5 and 2.0 TWh.
In the gas retail market all household prices were regulated from 2008 and 2016. The volume of gas
consumed was in the range between 1.0 and 1.5 TWh in the period analysed.
With the deregulation of prices in electricity retail market, there was also a large increase in the share
of households on social tariffs in Latvia (see figure 2). The share of households on social tariffs
increased from zero to 7 percent from 2014 to 2015. The regulator indicates however that in contrast to
the available data, social tariffs were introduced in 2015 only. In relation to the gas retail market there
are currently no social tariffs in place.
273/454
Figure 249 Household social tariffs in Latvia

household consumers in Latvia
Source: CEER data

The number of active suppliers in the electricity retail marker increased after the deregulation of the
prices in 2015. In the year prior to the deregulation (2014), there were five active suppliers. In 2015,
this number increased to 10 and in 2016 to 16. Nonetheless, the share of the three largest market
suppliers is more than 95 percent, which suggests that the newcomers are still relatively small. Prior
and after price deregulation in 2015 only one supplier on the market had more than 5 percent of the
overall market shares.
In the case of gas, given that the Latvian gas market has only been open since 2017, the diagram shows
only one supplier in the past 8 years. This has been changed given the new conditions. Three months
423.
after gas market opening there were 6 active traders, and in 2018 10 active traders
423
https://www.sprk.gov.lv/uploads/doc/Gazestirgotajuregistrs.pdf
274/454
Figure 250: Number of suppliers and market shares in Latvia
Source: CEER data
Following the reforms in the retail electricity market the switching424 rates in Latvia increased from
zero to one percent. Since the gas market underwent reforms only in 2017, the switching rates in the
period analysed (2008 to 2016) are equal to zero as during this time there was only one vertically
integrated supplier
Figure 251 Annual switching rates for households in Latvia
The switching rates on the gas market

for household consumers equaled zero
for all years between 2008 and 2016.
This is due to the fact that the
market was closed, and there was
only one vertically integrated
supplier: JSC ‘Latvijas Gaze’.425
424
425
275/454
Note that data is available for all years for the electricity market (switching rates equalled zero
between 2008 and 2015)
Source: CEER data
understand the level and evolution of the affordability of energy in Latvia.
Household consumers in Latvia spent the least on electricity bills in 2008. During that year, they payed
less than 3 percent of their disposable income on electricity. Between 2009 and 2014, this number
fluctuated between 3 and 4 percent (slightly above 4 percent in 2011). In 2015 and 2016, the years in
which prices were unregulated, an increase of expenditures as a share of disposable income was
observed. Customers spent around 4 percent of their disposable incomes on electricity bills since
market reforms took place. Household gas customers spent 1 or less than 1 percent of their disposable
income on gas bills in the period of interest (2008 to 2016). Thus, household spend less on gas than on
electricity in Latvia.
Figure 252: Expenditures on gas and electricity as share of disposable income for households in Latvia (for
427
276/454
prices. Wholesale prices for the electricity market are available only for the years 2013 to 2016. In
2013 and 2014, the energy and supply component of the final retail price was lower than the wholesale
price. This trend was reversed in 2015 and 2016. In both years the energy and supply part of the retail
price was higher than the wholesale electricity price. A similar analysis for the gas market is not
possible due to missing data.
Figure 253 Retail household price for middle consumption bands (DC and D2) and wholesale prices in Latvia
Note that data is not available for the retail gas market for the years 2008 to 2016. Also, there is no
Electricity wholesale prices are only available between 2013 and 2016
wholesale price. Consistent with the analysis above, negative mark-ups are observed for the years 2013
429
430
2014
277/454
and 2014. The mark-ups became positive in 2015 and 2016, coinciding with the phase out of electricity
price regulation for households. The mark-up doubled between 2015 and 2016. Due to lack of data
availability, no conclusions can be drawn on the mark-ups in the gas retail market.
Figure 254 Mark-ups for Latvia, middle consumption bands (DC and D2)
No data available on the energy and

supply component of the retail price
on the gas market for household
consumers in Latvia

Latvia does not have an official definition for energy poverty. However, the “inability to keep homes
adequately warm” can provide an indication for this 431. As shown in Figure 8, the percentage of
customers unable to keep their homes adequately has decreased from 20% to 10% between 2013 and
2016. This trend is also true for the percentage of arrears on utility bills between the years 2013 and
2016. Between 2009 and 2011, both the share of people unable to keep their homes adequately warm
and the percentage of arrears on utilities were on a rise and peaked in 2011.
431 https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/content/inability-keep-home-adequately-warm-18
278/454
on utility bills in Latvia
Source: Eurostat
Latvia had no definition for vulnerable consumers in 2014. 432 The definition of protected customers was
introduced in Electricity Market Law and has been applied from January 1st, 2015. There is no such
definition in legal acts regarding natural gas users.

The general level of consumer satisfaction increased from 2013 to 2015. The largest change in
percentage of people who experienced at least one problem with their electricity suppliers happened
between 2012 and 2013. During this time, the share of people reporting problems with their electricity
suppliers decreased by more than half. The general level of satisfaction with the gas industry and
percentage of people experiencing problems with their gas supplier has remained relatively stable
between 2010 and 2015. The highest level of satisfaction was observed in 2015 with a score of almost
80 percent. Figure 10 shows that the other consumer satisfaction indicators did not improve over time.
432
and measures. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/INSIGHT_E_Energy%20Poverty-
Main%20Report.pdf
279/454
least one problem in Latvia for households
perceived ease of switching436 in Latvia
Consumer choice
Information on different offers from which the consumers could chose is not available for Latvia.
433
434
435 DG Justice survey: The functioning of retail electricity markets for consumers in the EU. Question: “In your opinion,
280/454
Figure 11 shows the percentage of the currently electricity bill which could be saved by switching
suppliers. In 2015 this figure was at 6 percent and in 2016 it increased to almost 10 percent.
Figure 258 Percentage of the current electricity bill which could be saved by switching supplier in Latvia

The diagrams below show the type of offers available for electricity and gas. In the gas market, all
offers are other than fixed, variable or dynamic pricing mechanisms. In the electricity market only 30
percent of the offers are fixed and the rest are variable. The regulator indicates that most of these
variable offers are tied to the spot price. Some follow exactly that price, and others apply restrictions
as price ceilings.
Figure 259 Type of offers for households in Latvia (RC03b)
19.2 Non-Household Price Regulation in Latvia
Latvia phased out electricity price regulation for non-households starting from 2008; while it
only phased out price regulation for gas in 2017.
According to CEER, end user price regulation was gradually abolished starting in 2008 on the
electricity market for non-household consumers. In contrast, price regulation was abolished in 2017
281/454
on the gas market for non-household consumers. The price regulation was identical to the price
regulation for household consumers. The regulator indicates that “by April 1, 2012, the right to receive
electricity for regulated tariffs was for households and merchants whose annual turnover or balance
sheet total did not exceed 7 million LVL and the number of employees employed was less than 50
employees. Under these conditions, around 1700 electricity users - energy-intensive and large
enterprises, which took up ~ 35% of Latvia's annual electricity consumption, were involved in the
electricity market.
From April 1st 2012, users with a connection voltage greater than 400 V and an input protection device
with a nominal current greater than 100 A, namely, average electricity consumers, were involved in the
market. The share of open market participation was approximately 66%. From November 1st, 2012,
electricity for regulated tariffs was only for those users who use electricity for household needs. Thus
the open electricity market share reached 75% of the total consumption. On January 1, 2015, the
opening of the electricity market in Latvia was completed.
Figure 13 indicates this gradual opening of the Latvian, with a phase out of regulated prices for eligible
non-household consumers in 2012. Concerning the gas market for non-household consumers, a
decreasing trend is observed in the volume under regulation since 2010 (except in 2016).
Figure 260 Non-household price regulation in Latvia from 2008 to 2016
Note that the consumption under regulated electricity prices was zero from November 2012 onwards
Source: CEER data

the wholesale prices. Figure 14 shows that the energy and retail component of the retail electricity
price for non-household consumers increased until 2011. In 2012, it decreased sharply. However, the
final electricity retail price did not decrease as the taxes and levies component of the retail price
increased from 0 (2008-2011) to €18 per MWh in 2012. The wholesale electricity price (which is only
282/454
available for 2013 to 2016) decreased between 2013 and 2013. No data is available for the electricity
and supply component of gas for non-household consumers, which was a regulated monopoly until 2017.
Figure 261 Industry retail price components for middle bands (ID and I3) and wholesale prices in Latvia
for the electricity market for non-household consumers. In 2013 and 2014, negative mark-ups were
realised as the wholesale price outweighed the energy and supply component of the retail electricity
price. In contrast, in 2015 and 2016, the mark-ups turned positive. Even though strong conclusion
cannot be drawn as data is only limited available, the figure suggests that mark-ups are increasing
driven by the declining wholesale prices.
437
2014
283/454
Figure 262 Mark-ups for Latvia, middle consumption bands (ID and I3)
No data available on the energy and

supply component of the retail price
on the gas market for non-household
consumers in Latvia
19.3 Tariff deficit in Latvia
Latvia showed indications of a tariff deficit until 2011.
Tariff deficit refers to instances where there is a shortfall of revenues in the electricity market due to
tariffs in the retail electricity component of the market being set lower (in a price-regulated markets)
than the wholesale electricity price. Based on figure 7 on mark-ups, it is possible to observe that in
2013 and 2014 there were large negative mark ups indicative of tariff deficits. In Latvia indications of a
tariff deficit were observed by the national transmission system operator until 2010 and by the main
electricity distribution company between the years 2009 and 2011. Some of the losses in the
transmission and distribution activities could be due to delays in approvals of regulated tariffs by the
Latvian public utilities regulator.438 The regulator indicates that the new tariffs for transmission were
effective in 2011 following an agreement with the TSO, and that delays in setting distribution tariffs
were cause by the DSO not submitting complete information.439 However, since 2009 the vertically
438
“Electricity Tariff Deficit: Temporary or Permanent Problem in the EU?” EC ISSN 1725-3187
439
284/454
integrated state-owned company Latvenergo Group has been making profit which indicates that the
tariff deficits did not accumulate and there was no need to external financing.
20 Factsheet: Malta
This factsheet presents the findings for Malta for the ‘Study on energy prices, costs and subsidies’. The
20.1 Household Price Regulation in Malta
Malta still has electricity price regulation for households in place.
There is no gas market in Malta.
Malta’s Regulator for Energy and Water Services (REWS) took over from the Malta Resources Authority
(established in 2001) since 2015 the responsibility for the regulation of electricity and natural gas in
Malta 440 (additional regulatory functions stretch to the water and petroleum sectors). Electricity prices
are regulated for both household as well as non-household consumers.
EU Directives 2009/72/EC and 2005/89/EC were transposed into national law in Malta through the
Electricity Market Regulations (S.L.545.13). Derogations are granted to Malta through Article 44 of
Directive 2009/72/EC from the requirements of Article 9 (Unbundling of transmission systems and
transmission system operators) and Article 26 of Directive 2009/72/EC (Unbundling of distribution
system operators). As a result, these articles do not apply to Malta. Furthermore, there are no
transmission systems or transmission system operators in Malta. Electricity system balancing is aligned
with Italy’s Terna and independent power producers connected to the distribution system are not
responsible for balancing.
Although the electricity generation market is open to competition (e.g. from household renewable
energy generators), the retail of electricity in Malta is not open to competition and Enemalta is the sole
operator in this regard, performing tasks such as meter reading, billing, customer relations through a
subsidiary called ARMS Ltd. All customers of electricity are under the regulated electricity retail tariffs.
There is no natural gas market in Malta. However, Electro Gas Malta Ltd commissioned a LNG facility in
2017 (involving Floating LNG storage and an onshore re-gasification plant)440.
Any independent power producers connected to the distribution network are required to sell all
electricity produced and not yet consumed on site to Enemalta.
440
Council of European Energy Regulators (2017) Malta’s Report to the European Commission on the implementation
of Directive 2009/72/EC, Directive 2009/73/EC and Directive 2005/89/EC. Available on:
https://www.ceer.eu/documents/104400/5988265/C17_NR_Malta-EN.pdf/e76e7c95-6822-7c2d-7ed8-a4f25fa9810b
285/454
With regard to the retail tariff paid by household consumers, this is an “all-inclusive tariff” which
covers costs of operation, transmission and distribution. The retail electricity tariffs are approved by
the Regulator. A tariff review process is initiated by the submission of a request for a tariff review by
the distribution system operator/supplier to the Regulator. Tariffs are brought into force through
amendments to the Electricity Supply Regulations 441. Overall, the tariff is based on fixed annual service
charge and a kWh consumption tiered tariff structure. The tariff structure, which involves the meter
charge and certain additional components, for both household and non-household consumers is based
on a selection of tariffs that feature in a regulated agreement with Enemalta (the Electricity Supply
Amendment Regulations)442.
In addition to social support, an eco-reduction represents a discount on electricity consumption bill for
households based on energy consumption.
Figure 263Household price regulation in Maltafrom 2008 to 2016
No natural gas market in Malta
Note that 100% of the consumption was under regulated prices

Source: CEER data
In Malta, an Energy Benefit is in place for the following persons: those in receipt of social assistance,
those in receipt of special unemployment benefit, those in receipt of an age pension and those in
receipt of a carer’s pension. Others also receive an Energy Benefit, e.g. recipients of children’s
allowance, supplementary allowance, disability pension (where total income is less than €8886) or on
humanitarian grounds443. The number of households receiving Energy Benefits for gas and electricity has
declined from around 14% in 2008 to 10% in 2016.
441
http://www.justiceservices.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lom&itemid=12349&l=1
442
http://www.justiceservices.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lp&itemid=17214&l=1
443
Government of Malta. Energy benefit. Available on : https://socialsecurity.gov.mt/en/Short-Term-
Benefits/Pages/Energy-Benefit.aspx
286/454
Figure 264 Household social tariffs in Malta
Source: CEER data

Established in 1977, Enemalta holds an effective monopoly over Malta’s electricity retail market. Gas is
distributed to households in the form of liquid petroleum gas bottles, and consequently there is no
natural gas market in Malta
Figure 265: Number of suppliers and market shares in Malta
Data on the number of active suppliers is only available from 2011 onwards.
Source: CEER data
287/454
With only a single supplier of electricity, switching 444 rates are not relevant for Malta. Data on
household gas and electricity expenditures as a share of the disposable income are not available.
prices. It is interesting to observe that in Malta, the energy and supply component was €120 per MWh in
2008 but decreased to €100 per MWh in 2016. Taxes and levies and network costs components have
remained relatively stable over time. On the other hand, the wholesale price decreased from just under
€100 per MWh in 2008 to just over €40 per MWh in 2016 according to the CEER data. However, in the
absence of a liquid wholesale market in Malta, that price is calculated by the Regulator, which affects
this analysis. The developments of the energy and supply component of the retail price and the
wholesale price show similarities. Both increased in 2010 and 2011 and decreased between 2014 and
2016.
Figure 266 Retail household price for middle consumption bands (DC and D2) and wholesale prices inMalta
price and retail energy price component.445The figures below show the mark-ups along with the
wholesale price.In 2008, the mark-up was €29 per MWh. This mark-up has faced both increasesand
decreasesover time, with a maximum of €74 per MWh in 2013 and settling at a value of €51 per MWh in
2016.
444
445
2014
288/454
Figure 267 Mark-ups for Malta, middle consumption bands (DC and D2)

The proportion of consumers in Malta potentially suffering from energy poverty over time is shown in
the diagram below, i.e. the share of the population with arrears on their utility bills and those unable
to keep their home adequately warm. Since 2013 the proportion of consumers unable to keep the home
adequately warm began to decrease and in 2014, the proportion of consumers with arrears on utility
bills also began to decline (both measured less than 10% in 2016). This was possibly supported by
decrease in the energy component of retail prices.
Figure 268 Electricity price components for Band DC, the inability to keep home adequately warm andarrears
on utility bills in Malta
289/454
Source: Eurostat

The percentage of people experiencing problems with the supply of electricity to households in Malta
has been declining between 2010-2015, from 40% to 5%. Furthermore, the general level of satisfaction
with the electricity/gas industry has increased from 50 to 80 out of 100 points. Both indicators
illustrate a substantial increase in the level of satisfaction.
Figure 269General level of satisfaction with the industry and the percentage of people who experienced at least
one problem in Malta for households
446
290/454
perceived ease of switching449 in Malta
Consumer choice
Little information is available on the consumer choice in Malta in terms of different types of contracts.
Tariffs for households vary according to whether the premises are the primary residence, and
households benefit from tariff discounts for keeping annual consumptions below a threshold. 450 The
diagrams below show the type of offers available for electricity and gas, which are all variable.
Figure 271 Type of offers for households in Malta
447
448
449
450
REWS (2018). Malta’s Report to the European Commission on the Implementation of Directive 2009/72/EC,
Directive 2009/73/EC and Directive 2005/89/EC
291/454
20.2 Non-Household Price Regulation in Malta
Malta still has energy price regulation for non-households in place for electricity.
There is no gas market in Malta.
As mentioned in the introduction, Malta’s Regulator for Energy and Water Services (REWS) is since 2015
responsible for the regulation of electricity and natural gas in Malta for both household and non-
household consumers451 (additional regulatory functions also stretch to the water and petroleum
sectors). Despite recent developments in the sector, there is no natural gas market in Malta. Energy
price regulation in Malta is based on transposed EU Directives.
Figure 272Non-household price regulation in Malta from 2008 to 2016
Source: CEER data

the wholesale prices. As on the market for household consumers, the energy and supply component of
the retail price decreased in 2015 and 2016 and the wholesale price decreased after 2011.
451
https://www.ceer.eu/documents/104400/5988265/C17_NR_Malta-EN.pdf/e76e7c95-6822-7c2d-7ed8-a4f25fa9810b
292/454
Figure 273Industry retail price components for middle bands (ID and I3) and wholesale prices inMalta
retail energy price component.452 The figure below shows the mark-ups along with the wholesale price.
The mark-up was €15 per MWh in 2008 and has since increased to €53 per MWh in 2016 (reaching a
maximum of €81 per MWh in 2014). At the same time, the energy and supply component has decreased
since 2014 to a level of about €100 per MWh in 2016 and the wholesale price has decreased since 2011
to 2016 levels of just under €50 MWh.
452
2014
293/454
Figure 274Mark-ups for Malta, middleconsumption bands (ID and I3)
20.3 Tariff deficit in Malta
Malta had a tariff deficit in 2014, but none since 2015 after the sector restructuring.
The identification of the existence of electricity tariff deficits in EU Member States is complex. In
Malta, there is evidence of possible tariff deficits driven by the financial performance of the regulated
energy provider. Malta has been identified as having shortfalls of revenues in its electricity system due
to regulated electricity tariffs being too low to cover costs otherwise borne by the utilities. This is
particularly the case for households. Another piece of evidence that contributes to the suggestion of a
tariff deficit in Malta is that the national integrated electricity company (Enemalta) has exhibited
continued losses. Furthermore, Enemalta actually accumulated €0.87 billion of debts (equivalent to 12%
of GDP). This can be partly explained by high costs due to oil-based generation facilities and an
inability therefore to pass on all costs to consumers. This situation was complicated by the decision in
294/454
2014 to reduce energy tariffs by 25% 453, taken in the context of a new electricity interconnection and a
switch of generation to natural gas. However, the Regulator indicates there was no more tariff deficit
from 2015 after the sector restructuring.454
21 Factsheet: the Netherlands

This factsheet presents the findings for the Netherlands for the ‘Study on energy prices, costs and
subsidies’. The indicators presented are based on the database compiled for the study and includes
data up to 2016. The text, on the other hand, presents current developments at national level. The
factsheet has been reviewed by an NRA representative and data has been adjusted accordingly.
21.1 Household Price Regulation in the Netherlands
The Netherlands had no energy price regulation for households in the period assessed.
The Dutch legislation on the electricity and gas market is formalised in the Electricity Act 1998 and in
the Gas Act 2000. 455 Both acts authorise the Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) to regulate the
Dutch electricity and gas market. The Council of European Energy Regulators (CEER) characterised the
Netherlands as a MS which does not have price regulation in place for the electricity or gas market for
456,
household consumers. Yet, following the national documents prices are not entirely deregulated in
the Netherlands. In fact, all price changes in electricity or gas contracts need to be notified to the
ACM.455 In case ACM considers a price ‘unreasonable’, it has the power to reduce the price
retroactively. According to ACM, prices are reasonable if “energy suppliers sufficiently use the effects
of efficient operations towards reducing consumer tariffs”.457 In practise, this means that ACM assesses
the revenues, costs and margins of all contract types. If ACM finds that the tariff as a whole is
excessive, it may intervene. It remains unclear when exactly margins are considered excessive. Despite
ACM’s regulatory power, interventions on the pricing decisions are rare. In 2017, ACM determined that
Nuon charged an unreasonable price for two electricity products involving approximately 130,000
customers.457 According to ACM, these customers paid €2.90 (including VAT) too much for electricity
over the first six months of 2017. Although a final decision has not yet been made by the court, Nuon
could have to compensate the customers in case the court decision is in line with ACM’s assessment.
453
European Commission (2014) Electricity tariff deficit: Temporary or permanent problem in the EU. Available on:
454
Private communication (2018).
455 Both acts are available (in Dutch) at: http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0009755/2016-07-01 and
http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0011440/2016-07-01
456
For instance, the acts in the previous footnote or in their annual reports: Authority for Consumers & Markets (2017)
Jaarverslag ACM (2017). Available at: https://jaarverslag.acm.nl/sites/default/files/acm-jaarverslag-2017.pdf or
Authority for Consumers & Markets (2017) Annual report ACM (2016). Available at:
https://jaarverslag.acm.nl/sites/default/files/2016%20ACM%20Annual%20Report.pdf
457 Authority for Consumers & Markets (2017) Maximum tariffs set for electricity products of Nuon. Available at
https://www.acm.nl/en/publications/maximum-tariffs-set-electricity-products-nuon
295/454
Despite the tariff notification obligation and the revision powers of ACM for electricity or gas, the
effect of price regulation on consumers is considered very small. This is because interventions on
pricing decisions are rare and only affect a very small share of the customers. To illustrate this, in 2017
there were only two interventions on the market for electricity and gas supply.458 Besides, the
previously mentioned intervention only affects less than 2% of all household consumers of electricity.
Other common types of price regulation are fully absent in the Netherlands (i.e. social tariffs, revenue
caps or maximum rate of returns).

For both the electricity and gas market for household consumers, we see that the three largest
suppliers have had over 50% of the market over the last years. At the same time, there has been a
constant increase in the number of active suppliers. On the electricity market for household consumers,
the market share of the three largest suppliers has fallen between 2011 and 2016 which is an indication
of decreasing market power of the largest suppliers. Besides, the number of suppliers more than
doubled between 2008 and 2016. On the gas market for household consumers, similar trends are
observed.
Figure 275: Number of suppliers and market shares in the Netherlands
Note: Data on the number of suppliers with market shares >5% is only available form 2013 onwards.
For the gas market, data on the number of active suppliers are only available from 2011 onwards.
Source: CEER
458 Authority for Consumers & Markets (2017) Jaarverslag ACM (2017). Available at:
https://jaarverslag.acm.nl/sites/default/files/acm-jaarverslag-2017.pdf
296/454
For the Netherlands, data on the switching 459 rates for household consumers are not available in the
database. The ACM does indicate that switching rates for small consumers (households and small
businesses) has increased from under 10% in 2010 to 16% in 2017. 460
calculated expenditures on gas and electricity as share of disposable income for households for the
461
middle consumption bands (those who consume between 2.5 MWh and 5 MWh electricity per year
and between 20GJ and 200 GJ per year). 462 The indicator shows the significance of the total energy bill
compared to the disposable income and is therefore a proxy to understand the level and evolution of
the affordability of energy in the Netherlands. On the electricity market, it is shown that the
expenditures as a share of the disposable income have decreased on average between 2008 and 2016
and in particular after 2013. This change is most likely driven by decreases in the electricity prices as
the patterns in figure 5 panel I are in line with the patterns in figure 6 panel I (electricity prices).
Moreover, the household disposable income has not changed substantially over the same period. The
trends are less conclusive on the gas market. Even though a relatively sharp decrease of more than 1%
point is observed between 2013 and 2014 (driven by decreasing wholesale gas prices which induced
lower retail prices), the years prior to 2013 do not disclose a clear pattern. Overall, the expenditures of
Dutch households on gas and electricity as a share of their disposable income have decreased from 6.3%
in 2008 to 5.2% in 2016. This suggests that energy has become more affordable.
459
460 Authority for Consumers & Markets (2018) Energie Monitor 2018.
461
The data on gas and electricity prices separates different consumption bands. This report always shows the middle
consumption bands being DC for the electricity market for household consumers (2.5 MWh – 5 MWh per year), D2 for
the gas market for households consumers (20 GJ – 200 DJ per year), ID for the electricity market for non-household
consumers (2 GWh – 20 GWh per year) and I3 for the gas market for non-household consumers (10 TJ – 100 TJ per
year)
462
297/454
Figure 276: Expenditures on gas and electricity as share of disposable income for households in the Netherlands
(for middle consumption bands DC and D2) using PPS463
prices. It is interesting to see that for the Netherlands, the energy and supply component of the retail
price has decreased from €85 to €65 per MWh between 2008 and 2016. Further analysis might be
needed to gain a better understanding of the drivers behind the changes in the retail market.
463 Purchasing Power Parity (PPS) is an artificial currency. In theory, one can buy the same amount of goods or
services in each country with 1 PPS. It can therefore be used to compare prices across countries, taking into account
464
298/454
Figure 277 Retail household price for middle consumption bands (DC and D2) and wholesale prices in the
Netherlands
Note that data is missing for the gas market in 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2016. Also, there is no data
wholesale price. With respect to the wholesale electricity price, it is observed that it followed a similar
trend as the energy and supply component of the retail price (a decrease between 2008 and 2016 from
€49 to €36 per MWh). Unlike the energy and supply component of the retail price, the wholesale price
increased between 2009 and 2013. The mark-ups are relatively stable (except for the first two years of
the period) and vary between €27 and €33 per MWh from 2010 onwards. Prices and mark-ups are lower
on the gas market. Moreover, mark-ups are even more stable on the gas market and vary between €16
and €18 per MWh.
465
466
2014
299/454
Figure 278 Mark-ups for the Netherlands, middle consumption bands (DC and D2)
Note that data is missing for the gas market in 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2016

The trends on consumers in the Netherlands which are potentially suffering from energy poverty are
mixed, as can be seen by the diagram below showing the share of the population with arrears on their
utility bills and the share of the population unable to keep their home adequality warm. The share of
the population who was unable to keep their homes adequately warm increased from 1.8% to 2.6% over
time. In contrast, the share of customers with arrears on their utility bills has decreased slightly
considering the complete data period. However, prior to 2015, this proxy for energy poverty also
increased over time. This increase could partially be explained by the retail energy price, combined
with other factors; despite the decrease in the energy supply component of the retail price, the overall
retail price did not decrease. Besides, the Netherlands does not have social tariffs to support
vulnerable consumers.
300/454
on utility bills in the Netherlands
Source: Eurostat
In the Netherlands, there are no specific energy policies which target vulnerable consumers. Yet, over
the last years, several articles were published according to which consumers with low incomes will have
to incur relatively high costs to implement the measures to facilitate the energy transition.467
Therefore, some political parties are in favour of implementing energy related policies to support
consumers with low incomes. 468

Figure 6 suggests that consumers have become more satisfied with both the electricity as well as the
gas sector in the Netherlands. Between 2010 and 2015, the satisfaction with the electricity increased
year by year. Moreover, the percentage of people who experienced problems has decreased. The same
holds for the gas industry. Moreover, the increase in satisfaction with the gas industry is more
substantial (from 73.8 to 77.0) than the increase in satisfaction with the electricity industry (from 75.5
to 77.0).
467 For instance: CE Delft (2016) Voor wie zijn de kosten en baten van het klimaatbeleid? Available at:
https://www.cedelft.eu/en/publications/download/2309
468 House of representatives (2017) Klimaatbeleid treft lage inkomens. Available at:
https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/plenaire_verslagen/kamer_in_het_kort/klimaatbeleid-treft-lage-inkomens
301/454
least one problem in the Netherlands for households
Figure 7 shows three other indicators concerning consumer satisfaction. The scores on the ability to
compare products are rather stable for both the gas as well as the electricity market. On the electricity
market for household consumers, the scores for trust in suppliers and the ability to compare offers have
increased over time. Moreover, it is noteworthy that all scores on the gas market show slight increases
over the time period.
perceived ease of switching472 in the Netherlands
469
470 Survey question: “I can chose from a sufficient number of electricity providers?”
471
Survey question: “In your opinion, do consumers trust electricity suppliers with respect to the rules and regulations
protecting consumers?”
472 Survey question: “Which of the following best reflects your experience of switching?” Average of three answers
(easy, average, difficult)
302/454
Consumer choice
The table below provides an overview of key indicators regarding consumer choice. It shows that
consumers in the Netherlands have relatively much choice when it comes to energy contracts. Dual-
offers (gas and electricity combined), certified green offers, non-price-financial benefits and ICT-based
offers are available on the market.
Table 21-1 Consumer choice in the Netherlands (electricity, households)
Answer
Dual-offers available in 2014 Yes
Yes
programs, etc.)
Yes
etc.)
Figure 8 shows that Dutch consumers could still lower their energy bill if they would switch between
suppliers. It is also noteworthy that the potential savings have increased in 2016 (compared to 2015).
Figure 282 Percentage of the current electricity bill which could be saved by switching supplier in the
Netherlands

The majority of the Dutch consumers has fixed energy prices (both on the electricity as well as on the
gas market). On the gas market, 47% of the consumers has contract with variable prices (for instance
different prices on different moments of the day). This share is much lower on the electricity market.
However, by 2015 the share of variable electricity and/or gas contracts had risen to 58%.473
473
Authority for Consumers & Markets (2017) Trendrapportage energiemarkt voor consumenten - tweede helft 2015.
303/454
Figure 283 Type of offers for households in the Netherlands
21.2 Non-Household Price Regulation in the Netherlands
The Netherlands had no energy price regulation for non-households in the period assessed.
On the markets for non-household consumers, no price regulation is in place in the Netherlands.
Moreover, no permits are required to supply energy to large-scale consumers (i.e. non-household
consumers). Large-scale consumers are consumers with an electricity capacity greater than 3*80 A and
gas capacity greater than 40 m3 (n) per hour) as defined by the Dutch legislators. 474

The first panel of figure 10 shows that the retail and the wholesale electricity price show similar
developments apart from the year 2009. Furthermore, it should be noted that the decrease in the
overall retail electricity price is driven by the decrease in the energy and supply component rather than
by changes in taxes or network and supply costs. Results are less conclusive on the gas market for non-
household consumers (although the wholesale price and the energy and supply component of the retail
price show similar patterns).
474Electricity Act (1998). Available at: http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0009755/2016-07-01 and Gas Act (2000).
Available at: http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0011440/2016-07-01
304/454
Figure 284 Industry retail price components for middle consumption bands (ID and I3) and wholesale prices in
the Netherlands
Note that data is missing for the gas market in 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2016. Also, there is no data
The mark-ups on the electricity market for non-household consumers are lower than the mark-ups on
the market for household consumers. Between 2010 and 2016, the mark-ups were relatively stable and
varied between €6 and €15 per MWh. In 2008, the mark-up was negative (-€4 per MWh) as a result of
the high wholesale price (€73 per MWh). The mark-ups on the gas market for non-household consumers
show less variation and were between €4 and €9 per MWh in all the available years.
475
2014
305/454
Figure 285 Mark-ups for the Netherlands, middle consumption bands (ID and I3)
Note that data is missing for the gas market in 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2016. Note that data is missing
for the gas market in 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2016.
21.3 Tariff deficit in the Netherlands
The Netherlands had no tariff deficit between 2008 and 2016.
306/454
22 Factsheet: Poland
This factsheet presents the findings for Poland for the ‘Study on energy prices, costs and subsidies’. The
22.1 Household Price Regulation in Poland
Poland still has energy price regulation for households in place both for gas and electricity.
Poland regulates electricity and gas prices for households. The President of Energy Regulatory Office
(ERO) is the central body responsible for the regulation of energy retail prices. Electricity tariffs (G
tariff group) have to be approved by the President of the ERO. The President can exempt a supplier
from this obligation if he considers that such supplier operates in a competitive environment.
Currently, the majority of electricity sellers to households are required to submit their tariffs for
approval.476 However, only the default and vertically integrated suppliers are obliged to apply for tariff
approval. Non-default suppliers can use price lists that are not approved by the President of the ERO.
Tariff calculations are based on rules that take into account, among other factors, the external costs of
energy companies, including the costs of supporting renewable energy sources. 477
Liberalisation of gas prices is underway as per the ruling of the European Court of Justice (36/14
Commission v. Poland).478 Based on this ruling on October 1st 2017 regulated natural gas tariffs was
abolished to all consumers other than households, while gas suppliers to household may offer tariffs
only under the regulated cap. The deregulation of natural gas price for households is expected to take
place by January 2024.
Figure 286 Household price regulation in Poland from 2008 to 2016
476 https://gettingthedealthrough.com/area/12/jurisdiction/39/electricity-regulation-2018-poland/
477 “National Report”, The President of the Energy Regulatory Office in Poland, 2017
478 “Energy Union Factsheet Poland”, Commission Staff Working Document, EC, SWD (2017) 407 final
307/454
Source: CEER data
Figure 1 shows the volume and share of consumers and consumption for both electricity and gas retail
markets in Poland. The volume of electricity consumption at regulated prices was fairly constant
between 2008 and 2016. From 2011 to 2016 it remained relatively constant at around 30 TWh. The
share of electricity consumption for regulated consumers decreased from 100% in 2013 to 96.5% in
2014. The percentage of consumers with regulated prices has also been in steady decline from 2011
onwards. In the case of gas consumption by households, the volume of consumed gas at regulated prices
remained steady between 2008 and 2016 at around 40 TWh. The share of consumption of regulated
consumers in relation to the total consumption is equal to 100 percent. In short, even though the share
of consumption and consumers has decreased slightly in the last years, figure 1 confirms that prices are
regulated for the vast majority of the electricity and gas household consumers.
Currently Poland has social tariffs set in place neither for electricity, nor for gas, but the energy
poverty section describes the Polish financial support scheme.

Figure 2 shows that the number of active suppliers in the Polish electricity household market has been
continuously increasing from 2011 onwards. In 2013 and 2014 there were five suppliers with market
share larger than 5 percent. No data is available in the years preceding or after. The market share of
the three largest suppliers in the energy household market decreased slightly below 80 percent in 2015
but increased again in 2016. In the gas retail market the only supplier with a market share above 5
percent has an almost complete monopoly of the market (there was a slight decrease in 2016). In terms
of number of suppliers, figure 2 suggests that there is more competition on the electricity market than
on the gas market for household consumers.
Figure 287: Number of suppliers and market shares in Poland
308/454
Note: Data on the number of suppliers with market shares >5% is only available from in 2013 and 2014
for the electricity market and for 2013-2014 for the gas market. Data on the number of active
suppliers is only available from 2011 onwards.
Source: CEER data
The figures below show the annual switching 479 rates in households for both electricity and gas.
Switching rates in the electricity household market increased from 2012 to 2013 from 0.6 percent to 1
percent and declined to around 0.7 percent in 2016. Annual switching rates in the Polish gas household
market have been on an increase since 2014. They jumped from 0.1 percent in 2014 to almost 0.9
percent in 2016.
Figure 288 Annual switching rates for households in Poland
Data on switching rates for the electricity market was not available prior to 2012. In contrast,
switching rates on the gas market between 2008 and 2013 equalled zero.
Source: CEER data
understand the level and evolution of the affordability of energy in Poland. An average household (in
the middle consumption bands DC and D2) spent between 3 and 4 percent of its disposable income on
479
481
309/454
electricity. The numbers have been on a decrease since 2012 going from more than 3.9 percent to
slightly more than 3.4 percent. It should be noted that this decrease coincides with a decrease in the
(energy and supply component) of the retail electricity price as shown in figure 5. The share of
expenditure of the disposable income on gas for an average household in Poland has fluctuated
between 1.5 percent and 2 percent between 2008 and 2016, but not all Polish households use natural
gas. In contrast to the electricity market, the trend on the expenditures on gas does not show the same
pattern as the development of the energy and supply component of the retail gas price (see figure 5).
Figure 289: Expenditures on gas and electricity as share of disposable income for households in Poland (for
prices. On the electricity market for household consumers, the energy and supply component of the
retail price has consistently been higher than the wholesale price, with the exception of 2008. Even
though the differential between the energy and supply component of the retail price and the wholesale
price is rather constant, it is interesting to observe that there seems to be little correlation between
the two. Only between 2014 and 2016, both prices show a similar (decreasing) trend. Due to incomplete
data it is difficult to say much about the efficiency of retail competition in the gas household market.
In 2015 and 2016 the energy and supply component of the retail gas price was higher than the
wholesale price.
483
310/454
Figure 290 Retail household price for middle consumption bands (DC and D2) and wholesale prices in Poland
wholesale price. The mark-ups in both the energy and gas household markets have been positive, with
the exception of 2008 for the electricity market (mark-ups for the gas market are only available for the
last two years). The mark-ups in the electricity were highest for the years 2012 and 2013.
484
485
2014
311/454
Figure 291 Mark-ups for Poland, middle consumption bands (DC and D2)
Note that data is not available for the energy and supply component of the retail price on the gas
market in 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2016. The gas wholesale price is only available between 2013 and 2015

Studies on energy poverty in Poland have found that around 12 percent of the population (~ 4.6 million
people) is vulnerable towards energy poverty.486,487 Although this number is higher than the
approximate 7 percent of people who were incapable of adequately heating their home in 2016 (Figure
7), this is likely due to differences in the scope of the definitions. Figure 7 shows that the percentage
of people who are not able to keep their home adequately warm in Poland has been on decline from
2008 to 2016. As mentioned above, Poland does not currently have social tariffs in the electricity or gas
household sector. In 2013 a system of financial support for vulnerable consumers were established, but
it is outside the tariff system. The financial support system provides for payment of energy allowances
by municipalities to vulnerable consumers who were granted housing allowance (electricity consumers)
or a lump sum for the purchase of fuel (gaseous fuels consumers). They must also be, respectively, a
party to the common service agreement or supply agreement of electricity or gas, and reside in the
place of supplying this energy or fuels.
486 “Energy poverty in Poland 2012-2016. Description and changes over time”; Sałach K., Lewandowski P., IBS 2018;
http://ibs.org.pl/en/publications/energy-poverty-in-poland-2012-2016-description-and-changes-over-time/
487 According to the following definition of energy poverty: “Energy poverty is a phenomenon consisting in experiencing
difficulties in satisfying basic energy needs at a place of residence for a reasonable price, such as maintaining an
adequate heating standard and in other types of energy supply used adequately for satisfying basic biological and
social needs for household members.”
312/454
on utility bills in Poland
Source: Eurostat

Based on Figure 8 is it possible to attest that, in general, customers both in the electricity and gas
household retail markers are increasingly more satisfied with the respective industries, at least in the
most recent years. Consistent with this, the percentage of people who experienced at least one
problem in either sector has decreased over time. The decrease in the electricity retail sector has gone
down from 18 percent in 2010 to around 8 percent in 2015. In the case of the gas retail market the
percentage of customers dissatisfied with the industry has fallen to around 4 percent in 2015 from
almost 8 percent in 2010.
least one problem in Poland for households
313/454
In the electricity retail market the ability of consumers to compare products or services is consistently
ranked substantially higher than the trust of consumers in suppliers to respect the rules and regulations
protecting consumers. This second indicator, has had consistently low scores from 2010 to 2015.
According to the National Report of the President of the ERO for 2017, in 2016, there was a large
increase in complaints against practices of energy undertakings. Based on this the President of the ERO
made available a special complaint form on ERO’s website. This helped to improve performance
monitoring. The perceived ease of switching in the Polish electricity retail market has the highest
scores from all three indicators. Whereas the perceived ease of switching received the highest score in
2012 in the electricity retail market the opposite is true for the same indicator in the gas retail market.
With the exception of the sharp drop in perceived ease of switching in 2012, the other indicators of
consumer satisfaction in the gas retail market parallel those in the electricity market.
perceived ease of switching491 in Poland
488
489
490
314/454
Consumer choice
The table below provides an overview of key indicators regarding consumer choice. In 2014 there were
no dual-offers, combining both electricity and gas, available for customers on the Polish energy market,
however by 2018 such offers were available to consumers. 492 Certified green offers have been
introduced to the market in 2015. In addition, from Figure 11, it is possible to observe that Polish
customers have the option to choose from fixed, variable or other offer options in the household retail
electricity market. The spot option is currently not available in Poland. In the case of the gas market
only one type of offer is available. No information is available on options such as non-price-financial
benefits, non-financial benefits and ICE-based offerings.
Table 22-1 Consumer choice in Poland (electricity, households)
Answer
Dual-offers (electricity and gas combined) available in 2014
No
(CC03)
Availability of non-price-financial benefit in 2014 (sign-in
discounts, bonus for renewing contract, loyalty programs, -
etc.) (CC16)
Availability of non-financial benefits in 2014 (home
-
insurance, free maintenance of water boilers, etc.) (CC17)
Availability of ICT-based offerings in 2014 (in-house display,
-
energy consumption feedback mobile app, etc.) (CC18)
The percentage of energy bills that could be saved by switching suppliers is high, almost 46 percent in
2015 and more than 44 percent in 2016. Combined with the fact that the perceived ease of switching is
the highest scoring indicator in Figure 9 on customer satisfaction, more analysis is needed on the low
switching rates indicated in Figure 288.
Figure 295 Percentage of the current electricity bill which could be saved by switching supplier in Poland

492
315/454
Figure 296 Type of offers for households in Poland
22.2 Non-Household Price Regulation in Poland
Poland had no energy price regulation for non-households in the period assessed for electricity,
and only phased out price regulation for gas in 2017.
Whereas vendors in the household electricity retail market are required to submit tariffs for approval to
the President of the ERO, this is not the case for industrial and commercial consumers.493 As mentioned
previously, based on the ruling by the European Court of Justice, on October 1st 2017 the obligation to
apply tariffs to suppliers delivering natural gas to all consumers other than households was abolished.
Figure 297 Non-household price regulation in Poland from 2008 to 2016
No electricity price regulation for non-

household consumers in the period
Source: CEER data
493 https://gettingthedealthrough.com/area/12/jurisdiction/39/electricity-regulation-poland/
316/454
Figure 12 shows the volume of the electricity and gas consumption by consumers with regulated prices
in the non-household sector. In the case of the electricity retail market, there was no consumption
under regulated electricity prices for non-household consumers as market-based prices are offered to
this consumer group. In the gas retail sector the volume has remained fairly constant between 2008 and
2016.

Figure 298 Industry retail price components for middle bands (ID and I3) and wholesale prices in Poland
Except for 2008, the energy and supply comportment of the non-household electricity retail price has
been higher than the wholesale price. In 2014, the energy and supply component of the price and the
wholesale price were exactly equal. In contrast to the electricity market for household consumers, the
trend of the energy and supply component of the retail electricity price is similar to that of the
wholesale price (except for 2008 and 2014), suggesting a more efficient electricity market for non-
household consumers than for household consumers. There is no information on the wholesale price of
gas before 2013, thus the analysis is limited to the years 2014 and 2015. In both years, the retail gas
price was higher than the wholesale price.
317/454
The analysis made in the paragraph above is directly related to the observed mark-ups. The only year in
which the mark-up for the non-household electricity retail market was negative is 2009. In 2014, the
mark-up was zero. 2009 was the year with the highest mark up.
Figure 299 Mark-ups for Poland, middle consumption bands (ID and I3)
22.3 Tariff deficit in Poland
Poland had no tariff deficit between 2008 and 2016.
494
2014
318/454
23 Factsheet: Portugal
This factsheet presents the findings for Portugal for the ‘Study on energy prices, costs and subsidies’.
23.1 Household Price Regulation in Portugal
Portugal phased out energy price regulation for households for gas starting in 2013, but price
regulation remains in place for both gas and electricity for more than 20% of the consumers.
For electricity, Portugal eliminated end-user price regulation in the household sector for all consumers
from 2013 onwards, with a phase-out period. This is reflected in a continued reduction of the share of
regulated household consumers, reaching 23% by the end of 2016, with an even lower share of 19%
when measured in terms of market consumption 495.
End-user price regulation for households will be completely phased-out by the end of 2020 496. However,
Portugal introduced in 2017 the possibility of household electricity consumers to return to regulated
prices until then 497. EDP Serviço Universal is the universal supplier, but retailers have the option of
offering consumers regulated tariffs. If they do not, consumers have the opportunity to cancel contracts
free of any penalties and move to EDP Serviço Universal 498. The regulated end-user price is determined
by the regulator and is set to the average market price1. By 2016 the energy component of tariffs was
still below cost due to tariff increase caps, with this deficit being recovered through the global use of
the system (GUoS) tariff component499.
Portugal possesses an electricity social tariff discount since 2010, determined by the regulator and
available by all eligible households 500. The social tariff amounts to a discount of 33.8% on the regulated
tariffs, automatically applied to eligible households.
495
ERSE, Monthly Report of the liberalised Market – Electricity (December 2016):
496
The law 42/2016 extends with the article 171 the deadline for the extinction of electricity regulated tariffs to the end
of 2020 (originally being the end of 2017). Available from https://dre.pt/home/-/dre/105637672/details/maximized
497
Law 105/2017. Available at https://dre.pt/application/file/a/108074492
498
Ordinance 348/2017 which furthermore regulates the offering of regulated tariffs by suppliers and their reporting
obligations, and transparency and information to customers. Available from https://dre.pt/web/guest/pesquisa/-
/search/114200700/details/normal?l=1
499 ERSE (2017), Annual Report on the Electricity and Natural Gas Markets in 2016. Available from
http://www.erse.pt/eng/international/euromarkets/Documents/Relat%C3%B3rio%20CE%202016_EN.pdf
500
Created by law 138-A/2010. The eligible groups are determined by the Portuguese Directorate General for Energy
and Geology and comprise recipients of welfare allowances or to families with annual incomes below the set threshold
starting at € 5.808 (varying per household composition). The social tariff is limited to households with a connection
capacity below 6.9 kVA. ERSE (2017), Tarifa Social de energia elétrica em 2018. Available from
http://www.erse.pt/pt/electricidade/tarifaseprecos/2018/Paginas/TarifasSociaisAcessoTVF2018.aspx
319/454
Like electricity, Portugal eliminated gas end-user price regulation for the household sector from 2013
onwards, with a phase-out until the end of 2020 501. Likewise, this led to a sustained decrease in the
share of consumers with regulated prices, reaching 26% in 2016. The regulated gas end-user price is
determined by the regulator and is set according to energy, transmission, distribution and retailing
components, with an additional factor to incentivize the migration to unregulated prices.
As for electricity, Portugal has a social tariff discount for gas since 2010 502. It applies automatically to
eligible households and amounts to a discount of 31.2% (since 2016 to today) over the regulated
tariffs503.
Figure 300 Household price regulation in Portugal from 2008 to 2016
Source: CEER data

No year for the end of price regulation is indicated as the transition period goes to 2020
The database shows that the share of households under social tariff discounts has increased since its
introduction in 2010 both for electricity and gas. The sharp increase observed for electricity is due to
the automatic attribution of the social tariff to eligible customers from 2016 on. Despite the recent
increase of households with social tariffs for gas, these are comparatively much lower than for
electricity. Even before the introduction of automatic attribution, households on electricity social
tariffs were 10 times more numerous than for gas.
501
The ordinance 144/2017 extends the deadline for extinction of gas regulated tariffs from the end of 2017 to the end
of 2020, in order to equate the electricity and gas regulate tariffs deadline. However, the ordinance does not allow
consumers to return to regulated tariffs as for electricity. Available from https://dre.pt/home/-
/dre/106923197/details/maximized
502
Created by the law 101/2011. Available from https://dre.pt/pesquisa/-/search/671202/details/normal
503
Similar rules for eligible gas consumers apply as for electricity, although annual income is not taken into account for
gas consumers. Only the connection capacity threshold of 6.9 kVA is changed to 500 m3. ERSE (2017), Tarifa social no
Gás Natural. Aspetos principais 2017-2018. Available from
http://www.erse.pt/pt/gasnatural/tarifaseprecos/20172018/Documents/Tarifa%20social%20no%20g%C3%A1s%20natur
al%202017-2018.pdf
320/454
While the transmission system operator is responsible for the charges financing the social tariffs, the
imputation of these charges differs for electricity and gas. For electricity, they are imputed to
producers504, while for gas they are imputed to transmission and distribution operators and suppliers 505.
Figure 301 Household social tariffs in Portugal
Source: CEER data and the Portuguese NRA

market consistently over the last years, albeit with a continued modest decrease in concentration in
electricity since 2012. Thus, by 2016 the largest electricity supplier, EDP Comercial, possessed a
constant 45% share of the market. On the other hand, the share of the largest gas supplier, Galp,
decreased from 70% in 2013 to 55% in 2016 506. At the same time, there has been a sustained increase in
the number of active suppliers from 2012 to 2016. The regulator ERSE indicates several structural
factors contributing to these trends, such as the end of regulated tariffs, the entrance of Spanish
suppliers and increase offer transparency506.
504
Law 138-A/2010. Available from https://dre.pt/pesquisa/-/search/666880/details/maximized
505
Law 114/2017. Available from https://dre.pt/application/file/a/114426182
506
ERSE (2017), Annual Report on the Electricity and Natural Gas Markets in 2016.
321/454
Figure 302: Number of suppliers and market shares in Portugal
Source: CEER data and the Portuguese NRA
increased significantly since the abolishment of end-user regulated prices from 2013 on 508. Despite
fluctuations, household switching rates remain above 20% for both electricity and gas due to the phase-
out of regulated tariffs, increase transparency in supplier offers, and ‘adoption of regulated risk
coverage mechanisms by the suppliers’ 509. Nonetheless, there is a relation between the observed
consolidation of the market which led to sharp reductions in the number of electricity and gas suppliers
from 2015 on and the fall in switching rates in Portugal.
507
508
For gas, law 66/2010. Available from https://dre.pt/pesquisa/-/search/335465/details/normal?l=1/en/en/en/en
For electricity, law 75/2012. Available from https://dre.pt/web/guest/pesquisa/-/search/553927/details/normal?l=1
509
ERSE (2017), Annual Report on the Electricity and Natural Gas Markets in 2016. Available from
322/454
Figure 303 Annual switching rates for households in Portugal
Source: CEER data
understand the level and evolution of the affordability of energy in Portugal. Since the introduction of
social tariffs, the indicator remained stable for electricity and gas, except for a drop in 2016 for gas.
This may be caused by the automatic attribution of social tariffs from that year on. Moreover,
expenditures relative to income are an order of magnitude higher for electricity than gas.
511
323/454
Figure 304: Expenditures on gas and electricity as share of disposable income for households in Portugal (for
Source: Own calculations513 based on Eurostat
prices. For Portugal both wholesale and energy component prices have stayed constant since the end of
regulated tariffs in 2013 (albeit there are transition tariffs until 2020).
513
324/454
Figure 305 Retail household price for middle consumption bands (DC and D2) and wholesale prices in Portugal
Source: Eurostat (components of the electricity retail price), EC ad-hoc data (energy and supply
component of the gas retail price)514 and EMOS (wholesale price)
wholesale price. The electricity mark-up for households has decreased since the abolition of regulated
tariffs in 2013 and the gradual entrance of more households into the liberalized market. The gas mark-
ups are slightly lower than for electricity, but have increased from 2012 to above 10 €/MWh, in
accordance with data from the NRA.
514
515
2014
325/454
Figure 306 Mark-ups for Portugal, middle consumption bands (DC and D2)
component of the gas retail price) and EMOS (wholesale price)
Figure 307 Mark-ups from two gas origins to households for Portugal, with NRA data
Source: Private communication with ERSE (2018)

The diagram below shows a conflicting trend. While the share of the population with arrears on their
utility bills grew slightly since 2012, the share which is unable to keep their home adequality warm
decreased from over 30% to 23%. As indicated, the number of households on social tariffs increased
significantly since the introduction of automatic attribution in 2016, which partly explains the trend.
326/454
In 2016, Portuguese household consumers paid the highest electricity and gas prices of the EU516.
Increases in energy prices arise from the taxes and levies component, since the energy, supply and
retail cost components remained stable throughout the period of analysis. The European Commission
indicates that part of the taxes and levies increases until 2014 at least was due to subsidies to
producers. These subsidies arose from the renewable energy and combined heat-and-power support
mechanisms, and compensation for stranded costs from the liberalization process 517. Indeed, in 2016
support to renewable energy represented 21% of incumbent’s standard offers for households in the
Portuguese capital 516.
on utility bills in Portugal
Source: Eurostat
Portugal does not have mechanisms addressing energy poverty other than the social tariffs, but these
do include also the right to further favourable tax treatments 518. It is important to note, that in
Portugal vulnerable consumers are not officially defined. The eligibility conditions are defined for the
social tariff instead 519.
516
ACER/CEER (2017), Annual Report on the Results of Monitoring the Internal Electricity and Gas Markets in 2016.
517
European Commission (2014), EU Energy Markets in 2014. Available from
518
Namely the exemption from the Electricity Consumption Special Tax (IEC) and discounts in the Audiovisual
Contribution (CAV). ERSE (2017), Tarifa Social de energia elétrica em 2018. Available from
519
Recipients of welfare allowances or families with annual incomes below the set threshold starting at € 5.808 (varying
per household composition). The social tariff is limited to households with a connection capacity below 6.9 kVA for
electricity and 500 m3 for gas.
ERSE (2018), Tarifa Social de energia elétrica em 2018. Available from
ERSE (2017), Tarifa social no Gás Natural. Aspetos principais 2016-2017. Available from https://www.tagusgas.pt/wp-
content/uploads/2017/10/tarifa_social_ERSE-2016_17.pdf
327/454
ERSE become responsible both for technical and commercial service quality for electricity and gas
effectively from 2014 520. Compared to previous years consumer satisfaction increased sharply from 2013
to 2015 for both electricity and gas, and was accompanied with a decrease in the percentage of people
who experienced at least one problem. In 2016 the main cause for customer complaints in the
electricity sector were related to invoicing, followed by contracting and metering. In the gas sector
invoicing was also the main cause for complaints, followed by interruptions of supply 521.
least one problem in Portugal for households
perceived ease of switching525 in Portugal
520
ERSE (2013). Regulamento da Qualidade de Serviço do Setor do Gás Natural.
521
522
523
524
328/454
Consumer choice
The table below provides an overview of key indicators regarding consumer choice. In 2017, households
recovered the option to return to regulated tariffs for electricity, although these will be phase out
nonetheless526. According to the regulator527, the increased transparency in the supply offers available
to consumers was one of the factors contributing to the increase of the liberalized electricity retail
market size and robustness. Indeed, the regulator implemented several measures on offer transparency
and standardization in recent years both for electricity and gas, and offers on its website simulators for
supplier comparison and estimation of the power to be contracted. The regulator also monitors the
availability of dual offers, which in 2016 followed price decreases for the regulated (transitional) tariff
and gas prices.
Table 2 Consumer choice in Portugal (electricity, households)
Answer
-
-
(CC17)
-
etc.) (CC18)
526
Law 42/2016. Available from https://dre.pt/home/-/dre/105637672/details/maximized
527
The measures cover publishing reference price information on its website, standardization of (pre-)contractual rules,
public disclosure of commercial offers by large suppliers, tariff disaggregation in bills, metering data access, and
monitoring of suppliers. ERSE (2017), Annual Report on the Electricity and Natural Gas Markets in 2016. Available
from http://www.erse.pt/eng/international/euromarkets/Documents/Relat%C3%B3rio%20CE%202016_EN.pdf
329/454
Figure 311 Percentage of the current electricity bill which could be saved by switching supplier in Portugal

variable.
Figure 312 Type of offers for households in Portugal
23.2 Non-Household Price Regulation in Portugal
Portugal phased out energy price regulation for non-households starting from 2013 for electricity
and 2012 for gas. However, Portugal still has a (small) share (0-5%) of non-household
consumption under price regulation.
The market for non-household consumers in Portugal is in transition towards a fully liberalized market
without end-use price regulation which should be reached by the end of 2020. Consumers with gas
consumption below 10000 m3 or contracted electricity capacity below 10.35 kVA are eligible for the
regulated (transitional) tariff described in the ‘household price regulation in Portugal’ section.
330/454
The penetration of the liberalized electricity market for non-households has increased continuously
since 2012. Currently practically all large customers and industries do not have regulated prices, while
the penetration for small businesses has reached 94.9% in 2016 528.
A similar trend can be observed for the gas market for large customers which have non-regulated prices
since 2012. Since 2014, the liberalized gas market penetration for industries has been stable at around
91%.
Figure 313 Non-household price regulation in Portugal from 2008 to 2016
Source: CEER data

528
331/454
Figure 314 Industry retail price components for middle bands (ID and I3) and wholesale prices in Portugal
retail energy price component.529 The figures below show the mark-ups along with the wholesale price,
also using data from the NRA. This indicates that mark-ups in Portugal were very low in comparison to
other European Member States. Thus, mark-ups were consistently below 5% both for electricity and gas,
and even negative at some moments. This could indicate a deficit on energy price components as
discussed below for electricity.
529
2014
332/454
Figure 315 Mark-ups for Portugal, middle consumption bands (ID and I3)
Note that ad hoc data is not available for the gas market in 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2016.
Figure 316 Mark-ups from two gas origins to non-households for Portugal, with NRA data
Source: Private communication with ERSE (2018)
333/454
23.3 Tariff deficit in Portugal
Portugal had a significant tariff deficit accumulated by 2017.
In 2017, Portugal had a significant tariff deficit and had already accumulated a debt due to past
deficits. All deficits incurred until 2020 can be recovered through the GUoS (Global Use of the System)
tariff530. The continuation of the tariff deficit is explained by a cap on retail tariff increases, and the
authorization to recover costs related to renewable electricity support and supplier of last resort
obligations. Most of the tariff deficit debt is borne by the main Portuguese supplier, EDP, which unloads
these from its balance sheet through securitization of the debt in the financial market 531. While the
analysis of mark-ups for the gas sector in Portugal does indicate negative mark-ups in the past, there is
no indication of a tariff deficit for gas.
530
The decree 78/2011 established the cost recovery mechanism. Available from https://dre.pt/pesquisa/-
/search/670026/details/maximized
531
EDP (2018), Results Presentation 2017. Available from
https://www.edp.com/sites/default/files/portal.com/ye17_results_presentation_vf_1.pdf
334/454
24 Factsheet: Romania
This factsheet presents the findings for Romania for the ‘Study on energy prices, costs and subsidies’.
24.1 Household Price Regulation in Romania
Romania still has energy price regulation for households in place for more than 5% of the
consumers both for gas and electricity. However, Romania liberalised the gas and electricity
markets in 2007 and implemented a roadmap for phasing out regulated prices in 2012. Although
virtually all Romanian households are considered still regulated, an increasing share of their
consumption was sourced from the liberalized market.
The electricity and gas markets were liberalised for both household and non-household consumers on 1
July 2007, in accordance with Government Decision no. 638/2007. 532 With respect to end-user price
regulation, Romania signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the European Commission on 13
March 2012 which commits Romania to gradually phase out price regulation on the electricity and gas
market for non-household and household consumers. 533 For electricity household consumers, the
roadmap provided for the elimination of the regulated tariffs by 31 December 2017. 534 For natural gas
household consumers, in accordance with Law no. 123/2012 on electricity and natural gas, as amended
and supplemented, the process of phasing out regulated prices ends in 2021. However, within the
considered time period (between 2008 and 2016), price regulation was still in place on both the
electricity and gas markets for household consumers.
Price regulation is under the responsibility of the Romanian Energy Regulatory Authority (ANRE).
Regulated electricity prices are set and approved at the end of each year by ANRE. For 2016 this is
defined by the provisions of the Methodology for establishing prices and tariffs applied by the suppliers
of last resort to final consumers, approved by ANRE Order no. 92/2015.535 ANRE sets regulated tariffs
for the final consumers who did not exercise their eligibility right (i.e. choosing a market supplier).
According to the electricity roadmap for phasing out regulated prices, the percentage of electricity
purchased from the competitive market for final consumers who have not choose to change supplier
increased from 0% to 100% in the period from September 2012 to 2014 for non-households and in the
period from September 2013 to 2017 for households.536 Starting from September 2012 (non-households)
532 ANRE (2014) Newsletter Fourth Quarter 2014. Available at:

https://www.scribd.com/document/334465953/Romania-ANRE-Newsletter-Fourth-Quarter-2014-1
533 Romanian Energy Regulatory Authority (2017) National report 2016. Available at:
https://www.ceer.eu/documents/104400/5988265/C17_NR_Romania-EN.pdf/f91e100d-0e28-fd97-2c18-719d1993c1e1
534 ANRE (2014) Newsletter Fourth Quarter 2014. Available at:
https://www.scribd.com/document/334465953/Romania-ANRE-Newsletter-Fourth-Quarter-2014-1
ANRE (2014) Newsletter Fourth Quarter 2014. Available at: https://www.scribd.com/document/334465953/Romania-
ANRE-Newsletter-Fourth-Quarter-2014-1
335/454
and July 2013 (households), there are two tariffs on the electricity bill of the end-customers who did
not exercise their eligibility right: a regulated tariff and a new tariff, referred to as the ‘competitive
market component’ (CMC). The CMC differs from one area to another and is determined by the price
paid by the supplier for purchasing electricity on the competitive market.
According to Law no. 123/2012 on electricity and natural gas, the natural gas sector in Romania consists
of two segments: the competitive market (trading at wholesale level or retail level); and the regulated
market (containing natural monopoly activities, related activities and supply at regulated tariffs and
according to framework contracts). In the regulated market, final prices and tariffs systems are
established by ANRE. 537
Figure 1 confirms the situation on price regulation for household consumers in Romania. Even though
price regulation was still existent in 2016, the share of consumers under regulated prices has decreased
marginally since 2014, with the share of consumers under regulated prices decreasing to 97% in the
electricity market and around 98% in the gas market. This is explained by the fact that following the
Romanian roadmap to phase out regulated prices the electricity supplied to households had a dual
structure combining regulated and deregulated prices, so that practically all consumers are still
considered regulated. By the end of 2017, 100% of the electricity supplied to households should be
without price regulation.538 Figure 2 presents the regulated shares for electricity considering this
combination of regulated and unregulated prices, using data from the NRA.
Figure 317 Household price regulation in Romania from 2008 to 2016
Source: CEER data
https://www.ceer.eu/eer_publications/national_reports/national_reporting_2015/-
/document_library_display/35oiTkPsE0q7/view_file/3737549
538
Private communication with the NRA (2018) and roadmap for phasing out regulated prices. Available at
http://www.anre.ro/ro/cauta?s=foaie+de+parcurs
336/454
Figure 318 Household price regulation in Romania from 2008 to 2016
Source: CEER and NRA data
24.1.1 Social tariffs

Social tariffs exist only for the electricity market. In accordance with the "Procedure regarding terms
and conditions for granting the social tariff to electricity household consumers", approved by ANRE
Order no. 38/2005 as amended and supplemented, vulnerable consumers 539 with average monthly
income per family member less than or equal to the minimum wage set by Government Decision have
the right to apply for the social tariff.540 However, social tariffs were abolished as of July 2018.541
Figure 3 shows that the share of households on social tariffs has decreased from 16% in 2008 to 10% in
2016.
Figure 319 Household social tariffs in Romania
539 Defined by Law no. 123/2012 on electricity and natural gas as final consumers being part of a household group
that, for reasons of age, health or low income, are at risk of social exclusion, and in order to prevent this risk, benefit
from social protection measures, including financial ones.
541
Private communication with the regulator ANRE (2018).
337/454

household consumers
Source: CEER data

For electricity and gas (in households), we see that the three largest suppliers have had over 70%,
respectively 90% of the market consistently over the last years. The number of suppliers on the
electricity market increased between 2008 and 2010, decreased in 2011, and increased between 2012
and 2014.The drop in 2015 is explained because before then the total number of suppliers (licensed,
active or not) was reported. On the gas market, the number of active suppliers shows an increasing
trend from 2008 to 2016. However, the market power of the three largest suppliers remains relatively
high.
Figure 320: Number of suppliers and market shares in Romania
Note: Data on the number of electricity suppliers with market shares >5% is only available from 2013
onwards.
Source: CEER data
338/454
The figure below shows the annual switching 542 rates in households for electricity, which increased only
slightly after 2014, reaching 0.7% in 2016. Prior to those years, switching rates were practically zero.
ANRE, reports on switching rates for household and non-household electricity consumers, showing a
clear increase trend in the past 8 years. 543 The difference is explained by differences in the potential
base for switching (eligible meter points for CEER and consumption sites for the NRA).543,544
Figure 321 Annual switching rates for households in Romania
No data available on the gas market

for household consumers
Source: CEER data
Regarding the impact of regulated prices on household energy expenditures (figure 6), the consortium
has calculated expenditures on gas and electricity as share of disposable income for households in the
and for gas those who consume between 20 GJ and 200 GJ per year).546 The indicator shows the
understand the level and evolution of the affordability of energy in Romania. After an increase from
2008 to 2012, the share of disposable income spent on electricity decreased between 2012 and 2015.
Similarly, from 2012 to 2015 there has been a decrease in the expenditure on gas as a share of
disposable income. Even though disposable incomes are generally lower in Romania than the EU
average, the share of disposable income spent on energy is relatively close to the EU average. It should
also be noted that the relative energy expenditures decreased from 2013 onwards, while the energy
542
543
Romanian Energy Regulatory Authority (2017), National report 2016. Available at:
544
Private communication with the regulator ANRE (2018).
546
339/454
and supply component of the retail electricity and gas price increased. The decrease in the relative
energy expenditures was driven by a sharp increase in the disposable income (which outweighed the
increase in retail energy prices).
Figure 322: Expenditures on gas and electricity as share of disposable income for households in Romania (for
prices. For Romania, the energy component of electricity retail prices varied close to the wholesale
price in 2013-2015, but often in opposite directions and ended slightly higher than the wholesale price
in 2016. For gas, the energy component has been consistently lower than the wholesale price since
2008, possibly due to the fact that wholesale prices for natural gas from domestic production are
significantly lower, under 20 €/MWh. 549 It should also be noted that there appears to be little
correlation between the energy and supply component of the retail prices and the wholesale prices in
Romania.
548
549
Private communication and Romanian Energy Regulatory Authority (2017), National report 2016. Available at:
340/454
Figure 323 Retail household price for middle consumption bands (DC and D2) and wholesale prices in Romania
wholesale price. For electricity, mark-ups were negative until 2013, then increased to 7 EUR/MWh in
2016. For gas, data is missing for 2016. In all other years however, negative mark-ups are disclosed.
Compared to other EU Member States, Romania shows many years with large negative mark-ups.
550
551
2014
341/454
Figure 324 Mark-ups for Romania, middle consumption bands (DC and D2)

Figure 9 shows that the share of the population in Romania with arrears on their utility bills has
decreased significantly since 2014. The share of consumers unable to keep their home adequately warm
shows a decreasing overall trend since 2008. Both indicators suggest that the share of vulnerable
consumers has decreased over the considered period.
on utility bills in Romania
342/454
Source: Eurostat

The general level of consumer satisfaction with the electricity and gas markets has increased over time,
after a decrease from 2010 to 2011. Also, less consumers experienced at least one problem. Both
indicators suggest that the level of consumer satisfaction has increased on both the electricity as well
as the gas market. However, compared to other EU Member States, the level of satisfaction remains
relatively low.
least one problem in Romania for households
343/454
The graphs below show that, for both electricity and gas, the ability of consumers to compare products
or services has been stable over time (with a score of around 7 on a scale from 1 to 10). For electricity,
the perceived ease of switching increased from 2011 to 2015 (after a sharp decrease in 2011 compared
to 2010). For gas, the perceived ease of switching declined between 2013 and 2015.
perceived ease of switching555 in Romania
Data on the perceived ease of switching between electricity suppliers is only available after 2011
Consumer choice
No data is available on the specific type of contracts and consumer choice for Romania.
As shown in figure 12, consumers could have saved up to 15% of their electricity bill by switching
between suppliers.
552
553
554
344/454
Figure 328 Percentage of the current electricity bill which could be saved by switching supplier in Romania

Figure 329 Type of offers for households in Romania
24.2 Non-Household Price Regulation in Romania
Romania phased out energy price regulation for non-households starting from 2014 for
electricity and 2015 for gas. However, a small portion of consumers still had regulated prices for
electricity after this.
End user price regulation for non-household consumers of electricity ended in 2014, although in the
2014-2016 period there was a small share of non-household consumption which was sourced by the
supplier of last resort and universal regime. This share reached 4.2% in 2016. From 2015 onwards, end-
user gas price regulation for non-household consumers was abolished. 556
345/454
Figure 330 Non-household price regulation in Romania from 2008 to 2016
Note that from 2015 onwards, consumption under regulated prices equalled zero
Source: CEER data

the wholesale prices. In the first panel of figure 15, one can see that after price deregulation, the tax
and levies component was separated from the network one for non-household electricity consumption.
Figure 331 Industry retail price components for middle bands (ID and I3) and wholesale prices in Romania
346/454
For electricity, mark-ups were positive only in 2009, 2010 and 2013. For gas, negative mark-ups are
observed in all years, but the difference between the wholesale price and retail energy price
component decreased in 2014 and 2015 compared to previous years.
Figure 332 Mark-ups for Romania, middle consumption bands (ID and I3)
557
2014
347/454
24.3 Tariff deficit in Romania
Romania had a potential tariff deficit during the assessed period.
The negative mark-ups which were realised on the gas and electricity market for household and non-
household consumers hint at possible tariff deficits. Tariff deficits are shortfalls of incomes of energy
systems as the energy prices (which can be regulated) are not high enough to cover the costs 558. In
2014, the European Commission categorised Romania as a Member State which could have faced tariff
deficits as a result of the financial performance of the regulated companies 559. In the same report, the
European Commission argues that the regulated prices were set too low in Romania. On the electricity
market for household consumers, the retail prices have increased lately. This resulted in positive mark-
ups which suggest that tariff deficits are turning less problematic in Romania on the electricity market
for household consumers. It can, however, not be concluded that price deregulation has completely
solved the problem of tariff deficit. Even though price regulation was abolished on the gas and
electricity market for non-household consumers, negative mark-ups are still present if wholesale prices
for imported natural gas are considered.
558 http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/economic_paper/2014/ecp534_en.htm
559 European Commission (2014) Electricity Tariff Deficit: Temporary or Permanent Problem in the EU? Available at:
348/454
25 Factsheet: Sweden
This factsheet presents the findings for Sweden for the ‘Study on energy prices, costs and subsidies’.
25.1 Household Price Regulation in Sweden
Sweden had no energy price regulation for households in the period assessed.
Household price regulation is not a concern for the Swedish electricity or gas markets. In fact, the
Swedish electricity market went through a process of deregulation in 1996, 560 and the gas market was
deregulated in 2005 as a result of the EU’s Second Energy Package.

For both electricity and gas (in households), we see that the three largest gas suppliers have had over
80% of the market consistently between 2009 and 2011. Data on the three largest suppliers is not
available for the rest of the timeframe for gas. For electricity, it has remained around 40%. At the same
time, there has been a constant increase in the number of active suppliers in both markets.
Figure 333: Number of suppliers and market shares in Sweden
Note: Data on the number of suppliers with market shares >5% is only available from 2013 onwards for
the electricity market and not available for the gas market. The market shares of the three largest
suppliers on the gas market is only available between 2009 and 2011. Data on the number of active
suppliers is only available from 2011 onwards.
Source: CEER data
560
https://www.sns.se/wp-content/uploads/2005/09/sos_elmarknad_2005_eng.pdf
349/454
The figures below show the annual switching 561 rates in households for both electricity and gas. For the
electricity market, other than the 2009 spike, there has been a gradual increase leading up to 2013,
followed by a subsequent gradual decrease. The apex of this increase was in 2013, where the annual
switching rate in Sweden was just over 10%. For the gas market the switching rate has been more
sporadic. However in general there has been a consistent increase one year and decrease the next. The
only exception for this was in 2014 which continued a two-year trend of increased prices and led to the
peak of the annual switching rate for household gas at around 1.3%. It is therefore important to note
that the switching rate for the gas market at its peak in 2014 was exceptionally less than the electricity
market at its trough in 2008. This might be explainable from the relative longevity of the liberalised
electricity market compared to the gas market in Sweden.
Figure 334 Annual switching rates for households in Sweden
Source: CEER data
understand the level and evolution of the affordability of energy in Sweden. As shown in Figure 3, there
was a small increase from 2008-2010 in the percentage of the disposable income required for electricity
and gas (although gas expenditures are marginal). However this led to a decline from 2010-2014, a
561
563
350/454
levelling out in 2015, and a small increase in 2016. On the basis that both markets show similar
fluctuations, it seems that they were influenced by the economic conditions of Sweden. This trend
doesn’t seem to directly align with the overall disposable income fluctuations in Sweden during the
same time period, as reported by OECD.564
Figure 335: Expenditures on gas and electricity as share of disposable income for households in Sweden (for
prices. It is interesting to see that for Sweden, the efficiency of retail competition for the electricity
market is much lower than in the gas market. There was high point of this inefficiency was in 2015,
with an almost 90% difference between the wholesale price and the retail price of components. This is
a drastic change compared to the roughly 65% difference in 2008. For gas the differences are
considerably lower ranging between c.15-40%, the largest taking place in 2010 and 2014, with the
lowest being in 2012. The steady consumer costs for gas have been that way since 2007 and the
deregulation of natural gas. 567
564
https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-disposable-income.htm
566
567 CEER (2017), The Swedish Electricity and Natural Gas Market 2016
351/454
Figure 336 Retail household price for middle consumption bands (DC and D2) and wholesale prices in Sweden
wholesale price. For the electricity market there has been a broad decrease in both the retail energy
price component and the wholesale price, other than the sharp spike in 2010 and the smaller increase
in 2016. However up to 2012, the mark-up between the two grew to 30% with wholesale prices falling
more rapidly than the retail energy price component. This levelled out more in 2013 and 2014 at a
mark-up of 18% and 15% respectively. 2015 saw another steep decline in the wholesale price increasing
the mark-up slightly to 21%, but this was again reduced to 12% the next year. For gas the retail price
component remained relatively consistent, other than a slight increase in 2012 and then a minimal dip
in 2015. The wholesale value, however, had two large dips in 2009 and 2015, and an apex in 2012. The
lowest mark-up was therefore in 2012 at 7%, whereas the highest was in 2014 at 15%.
568
569
2014
352/454
Figure 337 Mark-ups for Sweden, middle consumption bands (DC and D2)

The number of consumers in Sweden who are potentially suffering from energy poverty has been
decreasing over time, as can be seen by the diagram below showing the share of the population with
arrears on their utility bills and unable to keep their home adequality warm. However the inability to
adequately warm the home statistic had an increase in 2016 from around 1.5% (in 2015) to 2.2%. The
reduced percentage of consumers with arrears on their utility bill may be indicative of the steady
decline in the energy retail price component.
on utility bills in Sweden
353/454
Source: Eurostat
In Sweden there are no social tariffs to support the consumption of energy to vulnerable consumers.
However there are provisions in both the Electricity Act and the Natural Gas Act that protect consumers
who are at risk of being disconnected from the electricity or natural gas networks as a result of unpaid
bills or other significant breaches of contract. Furthermore “vulnerable customers”, defined by EI as
“persons who lack the ability to pay for the electricity or natural gas which is transmitted or delivered
to them for purposes which fall outside of the scope of business activities", are eligible to receive
financial assistance to cover their electricity and natural gas needs. 570 The Swedish regulator estimated
that there are around 20,000 vulnerable consumers in Sweden. EI has previously estimated that around
20,000 consumers are included in the Swedish definition of the term.

In Figure 7 the level of consumer satisfaction is illustrated with the energy industry for electricity. In
Sweden it is clear that customers are largely satisfied with the industry with the satisfaction score
being around 75 and 76 in 2013 and 2015 respectively. Furthermore the percentage of people that
experience problems with the electricity industry has decreased between 2010 and 2015, from around
12% to under 6% of consumers. These two trends highlight that Swedish consumer satisfaction within
the electricity industry is only increasing. Figure 8 supports this insight, highlighting the high levels of
consumer trust in suppliers respecting consumer protection law and regulation. Furthermore,
consumers perceive that it is easy to switch between providers, with scores for this statistic remaining
high through 2010 to 2015 period. Lastly Swedish consumers have had a relatively moderate ability to
compare products and services for the electricity market. These factors further justify the high
consumer satisfaction presented in Figure 7.
570 CEER (2017), The Swedish Electricity and Natural Gas Market 2016; Insight_E (2015), Energy poverty and
vulnerable consumers in the energy sector across the EU: analysis of policies and measures
354/454
least one problem in Sweden for households
No data available for the gas market
perceived ease of switching574 in Sweden
No data available for the gas market
571
572
573
355/454
Consumer choice
The table below provides an overview of key indicators regarding consumer choice. The table highlights
the mature level of development in the Swedish electricity market for households. It meets 4 out of the
5 criteria presented below, while dual offers are not available because the gas market is very limited,
most households using exclusively electricity. This has been demonstrated with EI’s 2008 launch of an
online electricity price comparison site, to enable consumers the compare all Swedish supplier options.
Furthermore in 2009 DSOs were obliged to carry out monthly meter readings, which led to a full
distribution of smart meters to be installed across Sweden. 575
Table 25-1 Consumer choice in Sweden (electricity, households)
Answer
Yes
programs, etc.)
Yes
etc.)
Figure 341 Percentage of the current electricity bill which could be saved by switching supplier in Sweden

The diagrams below show the type of offers available for electricity and gas, most of which are Fixed.
575 European Commission (2014), EU Energy Markets in 2014
356/454
Figure 342 Type of offers for households in Sweden
25.2 Non-Household Price Regulation in Sweden
Sweden had no energy price regulation for non-households in the period assessed.
Once again, as mentioned for household price regulation the Swedish energy market was deregulated in
1996 for electricity, and in 2005 for gas. Therefore there are no non-household price regulations in
Sweden.

Figure 343 Industry retail price components for middle bands (ID and I3) and wholesale prices in Sweden
357/454
The mark-ups have been much lower for both electricity and gas in the non-household sector. For
electricity, other than the 2010 spike, there was a steady decline in the retail price component.
Similarly to the household sector, the mark-up for electricity had the largest increases due to rapid
decreases in the wholesale price comparative to the steady decrease of the retail price component.
This is particularly notable for 2011, 2012, and 2015 where the mark-ups were 15%, 17%, and 14%
respectively. Furthermore, 2008 saw a negative mark-up of -5%, however this does not seem to be
indicative of a tariff deficit. For gas, the wholesale price fluctuated differently the electricity market,
with a peak in 2012 and two troughs in 2009 and 2015. The retail energy price component was relatively
more stable, though it declined steadily from 2008 to 2015. There was a slight increase in 2012, but it
was not enough to make the 2012 figure a positive mark-up. This was therefore the smallest mark-up,
with the largest observable mark-up taking place in 2008.
Figure 344 Mark-ups for Sweden, middle consumption bands (ID and I3)
576
2014
358/454
25.3 Tariff deficit in Sweden
Sweden had no tariff deficit between 2008 and 2016.
359/454
26 Factsheet: Slovenia
This factsheet presents the findings for Slovenia for the ‘Study on energy prices, costs and subsidies’.
26.1 Household Price Regulation in Slovenia
Slovenia had no energy price regulation for households in the period assessed.
There is no household price regulation for gas or electricity in Slovenia. However, while this is not in
the scope of this study, there is regulation of the price of heat for district heating.577
The Energy Agency (Agencija za energijo) is the national regulatory authority for electricity and gas in
Slovenia, and monitors the prices in the retail household and business markets. It receives information
on prices changes or supply offers monthly. On the basis of the monitoring, the Energy Agency
determines
the retail price indexes (RPI) which are based on the lowest offer on the retail market, accessible to
all households and not restricted to the possibility of switching supplier. 578

of the market consistently over the last years. However, there has been a constant decrease in this
share for the electricity market (from around 75% in 2008 to 60% in 2016). At the same time, there has
been a steady increase in the number of active electricity suppliers. On the other hand, these trends
are not as straightforward in the gas market. Market concentration is moderate, with between 5 and 7
active suppliers in the past years both for gas and electricity.
577
Agencija za energijo (2016), Report on the energy sector in Slovenia for 2016. Available from:
https://www.ceer.eu/documents/104400/5988265/C17_NR_Slovenia-EN.pdf/a5d23292-942e-d220-3582-
103760438571
578
103760438571
360/454
Figure 345: Number of suppliers and market shares in Slovenia
Source: CEER data
The figures below show the annual switching 579 rates in households for both electricity and gas. There is
a high fluctuation in the switching rates for both electricity and gas reaching 7% for electricity and only
4% for gas in 2016.
Figure 346 Annual switching rates for households in Slovenia
According to the CEER data, switching rates in the gas market were zero between 2008 and 2010
Source: CEER data
579
361/454
understand the level and evolution of the affordability of energy in Slovenia. There has been a slight
increase over time on the electricity expenditures though they remain around 4-5% of the total
disposable income. On the other hand, gas expenditures have decreased slightly since 2011, though
they remain between 0.6% and 1% of the disposable income.
Figure 347: Expenditures on gas and electricity as share of disposable income for households in Slovenia (for
prices. It is interesting to see that for Slovenia, there has been a slight decrease in the energy and
supply component of the retail electricity price (since 2012), reflecting the decrease in wholesale
electricity prices which started in 2011. As for gas, there has been a strong decrease in the energy and
581
583
362/454
supply component of the retail price (from around 55EUR/MWh in 2008 to around 30EUR/MWh in 2015)
in contrast with the evolution for gas wholesale prices which peaked in 2012 at over 40EUR/MWh
(higher than the retail energy and supply component for the middle consumption band that year).
Figure 348 Retail household price for middle consumption bands (DC and D2) and wholesale prices in Slovenia
Information from Slovenia’s energy agency for retail gas prices for households confirms the decrease in
the energy component described above.
price and retail energy price component.585 The figures below show that, for the household sector,
electricity mark-ups have increased since 2010 – with a dip in 2015; while for gas there is no clear
trend, with mark-ups at 28 EUR/MWh in 2008, -5 EUR/MWh in 2012 and 7 EUR/MWh in 2015.
584
585
2014
363/454
Figure 349 Mark-ups for Slovenia, middle consumption bands (DC and D2)
Note that data is not available for retail gas prices in 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2016 and not for the
electricity wholesale price in 2008 and 2009

The consumers in Slovenia which are potentially suffering from energy poverty were increasing up to
2014 and then decreasing, as can be seen by the diagram below showing the share of the population
with arrears on their utility bills. There seems to be a correlation between increasing (overall) retail
prices up to 2014 and the share of households with arrears, but this is no longer the case for 2015 and
2016.
When looking at the households unable to keep their home adequality warm, these percentage has
remained mostly stable throughout time.
on utility bills in Slovenia
364/454
Source: Eurostat
In Slovenia, a vulnerable consumer is a household consumer who, due to its financial circumstances
(i.e. income, other social circumstances, living conditions, etc.) is “unable to obtain an alternative
source of energy for household use that would incur the same or smaller costs for essential household
use”. A DSO may not disconnect a vulnerable consumer from supply or restrict his consumption before
it reaches a quantity that is absolutely necessary in order not to jeopardise life and health of the
persons living in the household (emergency supply).

The general level of satisfaction of consumers has increased both for electricity and gas industries.
Though the trend shows a steadier increase for gas (going from 81 points in 2010 to 86 in 2015). In the
electricity industry there was a dip in the scores in 2011 and 2011 (with a score of around 77) and then
an increase to around 81 points which remained the same in 2013 and 2015.
365/454
least one problem in Slovenia for households
There has also been a slight increase in consumer trust and ability to compare products and services,
both for electricity and gas. The perceived ease of switching is high in both electricity and gas.
perceived ease of switching589 in Slovenia
586
587
588
366/454
Consumer choice
The table below provides an overview of key indicators regarding consumer choice. While dual and
green offers are available, there was limited information regarding other choices (i.e. availability of
non-price financial benefits or ICT-based offerings.
Table 26-1 Consumer choice in Slovenia (electricity, households)
Answer
-
-
(CC17)
-
etc.) (CC18)
The diagram below provides an overview of the savings that can be achieved by switching electricity
supplier as a share of the current electricity bill.
Figure 353 Percentage of the current electricity bill which could be saved by switching supplier in Slovenia

The Slovenian energy agency has also performed a quantitative assessment of the savings by which a
consumer can potentially reduce annual electricity costs when switching supplier or supply product. In
2016 the potential savings increased. For example, when switching from the most expensive to the
cheapest offer on the market, savings reached between EUR 69 and 91. The potential saving by
switching supplier within regular offers went from EUR 55 to almost EUR 60 in December 2016. The
increase in potential savings resulted from a reduction in electricity prices: the minimum electricity
supply cost was lower at the end of 2016 than at the beginning of the year, while the maximum cost
remained the same. 590
590
103760438571
367/454
A similar analysis has been carried out for gas showing that the difference between the highest and the
lowest price was increasing, and thus, potential savings were higher as well. In 2016, switching from
the supplier with the highest price to the one with the lowest price, could lead to savings between EUR
300 and EUR 370 (for a consumer with annual consumption of 2000 m3). Savings from switching based on
the average price were between EUR 65 and EUR 90, while savings on the basis of the lowest regular
price would be insignificant.591
variable. In the case of electricity, consumers pay for the supplied electricity according to actual
consumption metered.592
Figure 354 Type of offers for households in Slovenia
26.2 Non-Household Price Regulation in Slovenia
Slovenia had no energy price regulation for non-households in the period assessed.

the wholesale prices. For electricity, there seems to be a correlation between the wholesale prices and
the retail energy and supply component for non-households with both showing a decrease for the past
five years. However, this is not the case for gas.
591
103760438571
592
103760438571
368/454
Figure 355 Industry retail price components for middle bands (ID and I3) and wholesale prices in Slovenia
Information from Slovenia’s energy agency on retail gas prices for business consumers confirms the
decrease in the energy component described above.
There is an overall decrease in mark-ups both for electricity and gas going from 14 EUR/MWh in 2008
(gas) and 2010 (electricity) to 3 and 2 EUR/MWh in 2015 respectively.
593
2014
369/454
Figure 356 Mark-ups for Slovenia, middle consumption bands (ID and I3)
26.3 Tariff deficit in Slovenia
Slovenia had no tariff deficit between 2008 and 2016.
370/454
27 Factsheet: Slovakia
This factsheet presents the findings for Slovakia for the ‘Study on energy prices, costs and subsidies’.
27.1 Household Price Regulation in Slovakia
Slovakia still has energy price regulation for households in place both for electricity and gas.
Slovakia has end user price regulation both for electricity and gas for household consumers. Household
consumers are considered as vulnerable customers. Therefore, price regulation for electricity applies to
all household end users. Price regulation for gas applies to household end users who use a maximum of
100 MWh per year 594, however, almost all households fall under this category. Act No. 250/2012 Coll.595
regulates price regulation for both electricity and gas markets. This Act has gone through several
amendments, the latest being Amendment No. 164/2017. 596
Regulated prices are set for a regulatory period for every provider (supplying electricity to regulated
customers) on the electricity market by the Regulatory Office for Network Industries (RONI) (Úrad pre
reguláciu sieťových odvetví – URSO, in Slovak). Prices set by RONI reflect consumption of previous
period, balancing fee and maximum allowed profit which an electricity provider is able to gain. URSO
sets a maximum price, but the supplier may offer a lower price if it wishes so. The maximum prices for
household electricity suppliers are made of two components – a monthly payment per an off-take point
and the electricity consumed in the low or high price band. Household electricity supply is divided into
eight rates. 597 The maximum prices for gas supply to household consist of the maximum amount of a
fixed monthly rate and the maximum amount of a rate for the gas consumed. The structure of the
tariffs is based on six tariff groups based on the volume of the annual gas consumption.598
The measures aim to maintain acceptable price level for end users, while allowing providers to operate
with certain profit. Each operator on the market supplying gas to households is officially regulated via
set prices based on previous years of operation.
According to URSO599, there are still weaknesses in the Slovak energy market, with the largest suppliers
on the market abusing their dominant position with respect to the end users. For example, in 2012,
594
Annual report RONI for the year 2017. Available at:
http://www.urso.gov.sk/sites/default/files/dokumenty/RONI_AR_2017.pdf
595
Act No. 250/2012 Coll. on regulation of network industries, available at http://www.zakonypreludi.sk/zz/2012-
250
596
Amendment 164/2017 amending Act No. 250/2012 Coll. on regulation of network industries, available at
http://www.zakonypreludi.sk/zz/2017-164
597
National report for the year 2016 submitted as of 31 July 2017 by the Regulatory Office for Network Industries
Slovakia. http://www.urso.gov.sk/sites/default/files/NarodnaSprava_za2016_EN.pdf
598
Annual report RONI for the year 2017. Available at:
599
Direct communication with URSO
371/454
when price regulation for SMEs’ end users was abolished, the energy prices increased immediately by 10
to 20%.
Another example is, when in 2016, gas suppliers for households in Slovakia did not manage to react
promptly to the development of European gas markets and did not offer lower prices to Slovak
households, even though the price of gas as a commodity on exchanges had been significantly declining
over a longer period of time. This showed the need for end user price regulation in Slovakia. URSO
needed to intervene in May 2016 to decrease the maximum gas price for households, and the gas prices
for household end users fell by 4.87%.600
Figure 357 Household price regulation in Slovakia from 2008 to 2016
Note that the share of consumers with regulated electricity prices was 100% between 2009 and 2014.
No data was available for this indicator (and the share of consumption of regulated consumers out of
total electricity consumption) in 2015 and 2016
Source: CEER data and NRA representative
During 2008 – 2016, all household electricity consumption fell under regulated prices, while almost all
household gas consumption (almost 99.4%) fell under regulated prices. In the electricity sector, all
household consumers have regulated price of electricity, while in the gas sector, almost all household
consumers (close to 100%) have regulated gas prices. The consumption of electricity of households
varied between around 4.9 to 5.15 TWh, while the consumption of gas was around 12.5 to 16 TWh
during this time period.
There are no social tariffs in Slovakia.

of the market consistently over the last years. Between 2008 and 2012, this has been (close to) 100%. In
600
Direct communication with URSO
372/454
the gas household market, the three largest suppliers have had even over 90% of the market in the last
three years. At the same time, there has been a constant increase in the number of active suppliers
until 2013, then a slight decrease.
Figure 358: Number of suppliers and market shares in Slovakia
Source: CEER data
in both cases have increased from below 1-2% to above 5-9% in 2012 for electricity and gas markets
respectively. Since then they have decreased but remain close to 3%. Increased switching rates suggest
increased competition on the markets. Overall, switching rates remain relatively low. For gas markets,
according to URSO this is due to the maturity of the gas market and the very low difference between
prices of different gas suppliers.602
Figure 359 Annual switching rates for households in Slovakia
601
602 Energie Portal, Ktori dodavatelia plynu na Slovensku su najvacsi ? Rebricek vedu SPP a innogy, available at :
https://www.energie-portal.sk/Dokument/ktori-dodavatelia-plynu-na-slovensku-su-najvacsi-rebricek-vedu-spp-a-innogy-
103750.aspx
373/454
Note that switching rates equalled zero on the electricity market in 2008 and on the gas market
between 2008 and 2010
Source: CEER data
understand the level and evolution of the affordability of energy in Slovakia. In Slovakia, the share of
expenditures on electricity is close to the EU average of around 4% and since 2014 below the EU
average; while for gas it is way above the 1 to 2% EU average expenditure despite the price regulation.
As mentioned at the beginning of this factsheet, the gas suppliers do not yet adequately respond to gas
price market developments and end consumers end up with higher gas prices. Moreover, the number of
active gas suppliers has slightly decreased in the past years. Slovakia also depends heavily on gas
imports.
Figure 360: Expenditures on gas and electricity as share of disposable income for households in Slovakia (for
603
non-household consumers (2 GWh – 20 GWh per year) and I3 for the gas market for non-household consumers (10 TJ –
100 TJ per year)
604
The expenditures on energy where calculated by multiplying the energy consumption per household by its price
and divide this by the disposable income per household.
605
Purchasing Power Parity (PPS) is an artificial currency used to compare prices across countries, taking into
account the differences in purchasing power between countries (Eurostat statistics explained, 2014).
606
374/454
prices. It is interesting to see that for Slovakia, from 2012 there is a slight decrease in the energy and
supply component of the electricity retail price which is more or less in line with the slight decrease of
electricity wholesale prices. In the gas markets, the energy component is not in line with the wholesale
price.
Figure 361 Retail household price for middle consumption bands (DC and D2) and wholesale prices in Slovakia
wholesale price.
607
608
2014
375/454
Figure 362 Mark-ups for Slovakia, middle consumption bands (DC and D2)
The figures above show that in the electricity markets, the mark-ups vary from 26 EUR/ MWh to 11
EUR/MWh in 2016. The mark-up has been constantly decreasing since 2012. On the gas market, negative
and positive mark-ups are displayed.

The consumers in Slovakia which are potentially suffering from energy poverty have been constant at
around 6% in recent years, as can be seen by the diagram below showing the share of the population
with arrears on their utility bills. There has been a large drop of such consumers from close to 12% in
2009 suffering from arrears on utility to close to 6% in 2011. The share of consumers unable to keep
home adequately warm has slightly increased and then decreased over time, ranging between 4-6%. At
the same time, the energy component in retail prices has been slightly decreasing in the last years.
on utility bills in Slovakia
376/454
Source: Eurostat
It is important to note, that in Slovakia vulnerable consumers are defined as households and SMEs.

The general level of satisfaction with the electricity and gas industry was more or less similar for both
industries and has been relatively constant over time. In the electricity sector, in past years, consumers
seemed to be slightly less satisfied than in the gas markets (as the percentage of people who
experienced at least one problem was higher). The percentage of people who experienced at least one
problem has declined for both markets over time.
least one problem in Slovakia for households
377/454
perceived ease of switching612 in Slovakia
No data is available for the perceived ease of switching in 2010 and 2011
Consumer choice
The table below provides an overview of key indicators regarding consumer choice, showing that Slovak
households do not have choices in several aspects in the electricity market.
Table 27-1 Consumer choice in Slovakia (electricity, households)
Answer
-
-
(CC17)
-
etc.) (CC18)
The figure below shows that switching electricity supplier can lead to some cost savings, which were
close to 3% in 2015 but reached 6% in 2016.
609
610
DG Justice survey: The functioning of retail electricity markets for consumers in the EU. Question: “I can chose
611
DG Justice survey: The functioning of retail electricity markets for consumers in the EU. Question: “In your
opinion, do consumers trust electricity suppliers with respect to the rules and regulations protecting consumers?”
612
378/454
Figure 366 Percentage of the current electricity bill which could be saved by switching supplier in Slovakia

The diagram below shows that the type of offers available for electricity and gas are other or not
known. Around 12% of offers in the gas market are fixed.
Figure 367 Type of offers for households in Slovakia
27.2 Non-Household Price Regulation in Slovakia
Slovakia phased out energy price regulation for non-households starting from 2012 both for gas
and electricity. Slovakia still applies gas and electricity price regulation for SMEs, which
represent less than 5% of non-household consumption.613
Slovakia applies price regulation for end users in the non-household sector for both electricity and gas
sectors. However, it applies only to SMEs. Similar regulation of prices applies as for households.
According to Act No. 250/2012 Coll. an SME is an end user with a maximum annual consumption of
electricity of 30 000 kWh for the past year, or an end user with a maximum annual consumption of gas
of 100 000 kWh for the past year.
613
Price regulation for SMEs was initially phased out in 2012 and reintroduced in the same year due to large increases
in the electricity prices
379/454
The need to regulate the supply of electricity to SMEs stemmed from the recent opening of the
electricity market. The price deregulation did not lower the prices and costs of electricity to
customers, but the opposite. Regulation of final prices to SMEs customers has stabilized the energy
prices.614 As mentioned above, in 2012, the price regulation for electricity for SMEs was abolished but
reintroduced as the prices rose significantly.
Regarding gas supply to SMEs, the tariffs are divided into six tariff groups based on the annual volume
of the natural gas consumption.615
Figures below show that around 0.36 to 0.39 TWh consumption of electricity is regulated, while it is
around 0.53 to 0.67 TWh of gas consumption between 2013-2016.
Figure 368 Non-household price regulation in Slovakia from 2008 to 2016
Note that no data is available between 2009 and 2011 for the electricity market, other empty bars
refer to zeros
Source: CEER data

the wholesale prices. Similar patterns can be seen as for the household sector.
614 National report for the year 2016 submitted as of 31 July 2017 by the Regulatory Office for Network Industries
Slovakia. http://www.urso.gov.sk/sites/default/files/NarodnaSprava_za2016_EN.pdf
615 Annual report RONI for the year 2017. Available at:
380/454
Figure 369 Industry retail price components for middle bands (ID and I3) and wholesale prices in Slovakia
The figures below show that the mark-ups for non-household consumers with price regulation (SMEs) are
much lower in the electricity sector than for households, ranging from around 14 EUR/ MWh in 2012 and
2013 to around 1 EUR/ MWh in 2016.
616
2014
381/454
Figure 370 Mark-ups for Slovakia, middle consumption bands (ID and I3)
27.3 Tariff deficit in Slovakia
Slovakia had no tariff deficit between 2008 and 2016.
382/454
28 Factsheet: the United Kingdom

This factsheet presents the findings for the UK for the ‘Study on energy prices, costs and subsidies’. The
The text, on the other hand, presents current developments at national level.
28.1 Household Price Regulation in the UK
The UK had no energy price regulation for households in the period assessed. However, a price
cap has been set since 2017 for both gas and electricity.
Prior to 2017 there was no price regulation or social tariffs for gas or electricity to households in the
UK. However, it is an issue that has caused some concern and has been investigated. In June 2016, the
Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) published its final report 617 into the GB energy market. The
summary document of this extensive report gives the following explanation as to why it was carried
out:
“Ofgem referred the energy markets to us {the CMA} in 2014, a decision that can be seen as the
culmination of concerns regarding the energy sector that had been growing for a number of years.
Perhaps most importantly, there was a rapid increase in retail energy prices between 2004 and 2014:
average annual domestic gas prices rose by around 125% in real terms over the period, and domestic
electricity prices by around 75%. There was no consensus on the extent to which these price rises
reflected increases in costs, which led to a concern that current price levels may be generating
excessive levels of profitability for energy generators and suppliers. “
This report has led to a cap on the gas and electricity tariffs paid by customers on prepaid meters
(which was around 16% of all domestic customers in 2016). On 1 April 2017, the amount of money
suppliers can charge a domestic prepayment meter (PPM) customer per unit of energy became subject
to a safeguard tariff (or ‘price cap’). On the 2 February 2018, Ofgem extended this price protection to
a further one million vulnerable customers receiving the Warm Home Discount 618. The warm home
discount is a £140 per year discount to the electricity bill that is available to those that receive pension
credits (i.e. pensioners with incomes below a certain level) or those on a low income (i.e. that receive
certain income-dependant social payments). The customers need to apply to their supplier for this
discount and the number of discounts each supplier can give is limited.
Under the PPM price cap suppliers can charge less than the set level of the safeguard tariff, but not
more. It does not cap the total cost of a bill. That is because the amount customers pay also depends
on how much gas or electricity they have used. Ofgem is responsible for administering the safeguard
tariff. The level of the cap is updated on 1 April and 1 October each year. Ofgem publishes separate
levels of the cap for each region and meter type, calculated using a methodology designed by the CMA.
This methodology sets the level of the cap based on calculations of: wholesale costs, network costs,
617
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/531204/overvi
ew-modernising-the-energy-market.pdf
618 https://www.gov.uk/the-warm-home-discount-scheme
383/454
policy costs, operating costs, and costs specifically associated with prepayment meters. It also includes
a degree of ‘headroom’, which is designed to allow suppliers to offer competitive deals underneath the
cap.
The report has also led to a current (2018) proposal for the introduction of temporary price caps for all
standard variable tariffs (SVT) and fixed-term default tariffs. The UK energy regulator (Ofgem) has
consulted on the proposal 619 and anticipate that Parliament will approve the Domestic Gas and
Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill in the summer of 2018, and the cap will come into force at the end of 2018.
The level of the price cap on SVTs has not yet been confirmed.
The SVT and default tariff cap extends protection to all consumers who do not engage in the market
frequently. This reflects the finding of the CMA report that consumers on prepayment meters as well as
those who have not changed from their default supplier (and are typically on SVT of other default
tariffs) are being charged more than those customers who change suppliers and/or pay for their gas and
electricity by direct debit. Ofgem market review 620 indicates that the majority of customers are still on
poor value SVTs with their energy supplier. As of September 2017, around 57% of people with the 10
largest suppliers – around 13 million customers – are on non-price-protected SVTs.

of the market consistently over the last years. At the same time, there has been a significant increase
in the number of active suppliers.
Figure 371: Number of suppliers and market shares in UK
619 https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications-and-updates/default-tariff-cap-policy-consultation-overview
620 https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications-and-updates/standard-variable-tariffs-latest-trends-september-2017
384/454
Source: CEER data
shows that the vast majority of customers do not frequently change their supplier, although this trend
has improved over the last three years, with the most recent data from the Energy UK trade association
(May 2018 622) confirming that this growth in switching is continuing. The CMA report quoted earlier in
this note gave the following summary analysis of the main reasons behind many customers lack of
switching.
“Some categories of customer – for example, those who do not have access to the internet, those who
are on particular types of restricted meter, and prepayment customers – experience specific, material
difficulties in shopping around and switching. However, for the majority of domestic customers,
shopping around and switching is relatively easy - yet many of these customers have never considered
engaging, either because it has not occurred to them or because they think it will be too much hassle.
There are a number of possible explanations for this, including the role of traditional meters and bills,
which create barriers to understanding,
the lack of quality differentiation of gas and electricity and the absence of a trigger point for
engagement, arising from the fact that energy is continuously supplied whether or not a customer has
signed a contract.”
Figure 372 Annual switching rates for households in UK
Source: CEER data
621
622 https://www.energy-uk.org.uk/publication.html?task=file.download&id=6677
385/454
understand the level and evolution of the affordability of energy in UK. It is interesting to note that the
peak in the relative expense of gas and electricity coincided with an increase in the rate of switching
suppliers. This could indicate that the higher prices encouraged more people to seek a lower cost
supplier.
Figure 373: Expenditures on gas and electricity as share of disposable income for households in UK (for middle
No data is available for 2016

prices. It is interesting to see that for UK, despite prices (and the energy price component) rising for
624
626
386/454
electricity the wholesale price remained relatively flat (as shown in figure 4). For gas the whole price
tracked the energy component more closely. The CMA report627 considered the level of profits made by
energy suppliers and produced the following conclusions:
“After a sustained period of real terms reductions in the years following privatisation, domestic gas and
electricity prices have increased significantly over the last ten years. Average domestic electricity
prices rose by around 75% in real terms between 2004 and 2014, and average domestic gas prices rose
by around 125% in real terms over the same period. In 2015, the upwards trend halted, with electricity
prices roughly flat and gas prices falling nearly 5% in real terms.
We have reviewed financial data submitted by the Six Large Energy Firms, for the period 2009 to 2014.
This suggests that, for electricity, the main drivers of domestic price increases from 2009 to 2014 were
the costs of social and environmental obligations and network costs. Reported wholesale costs remained
flat while profit (EBIT 628) margins fell sharply in 2010 and rose steadily year on year thereafter. For gas,
there was a broadly even percentage increase in wholesale costs, network costs, obligation costs and
indirect costs, with EBIT increasing significantly after 2009. Average EBIT margins earned on sales to
domestic customers were 3.5% over the period. Average EBIT margins on sales of gas (4.5%) were higher
than those on sales of electricity (2.5%).”
Figure 374 Retail household price for middle consumption bands (DC and D2) and wholesale prices in UK
Note that data is not available for the gas market in 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2016 and not for the
electricity market in 2010. Also, there is no data available for the taxes and levies component and the
network component for the gas market.
627
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/531157/Energ
y-final-report-summary.pdf
628 Earnings before interest and tax, or gross profit less indirect costs
629
387/454
wholesale price.
Figure 375 Mark-ups for UK, middle consumption bands (DC and D2)

The consumers in UK which are potentially suffering from energy poverty are decreasing over time, as
can be seen by the diagram below showing the share of the population with arrears on their utility bills
and unable to keep their home adequality warm.
on utility bills in UK
630
2014
388/454
No data is available on the retail price in 2010 and the arrears on the utility bill in 2009
Source: Eurostat
UK energy suppliers operate a scheme known as the Warm Home Discount 631. The warm home discount
is a £140 per year discount to the electricity bill that is available to those that receive pension credits
(i.e. pensioners with incomes below a certain level) or those on a low income (i.e. that receive certain
income dependant social payments). The customers need to apply to their supplier for this discount and
the number of discounts each supplier can give is limited.
The UK social care system also provides a winter fuel benefit632 of between £100 and £300 to eligible
pensioners. The government also provides additional cold weather payments 633 of £25 per person for
each 7 day period of very cold weather on an area by area basis when average temperatures fall below
zero degrees Celsius for seven consecutive days between 1 November and 31 March.

Over the period of investigation, the level of consumer satisfaction has remained rather stable between
2010 and 2015 both for electricity and gas. The percentage of people experiencing a problem with
electricity services however has decreased since it peaked in 2011. For gas the incidence of problems
also peaked in 2011, after which there was a significant decrease and another peak in 2015.
The CMA report considered consumer satisfaction in its report, noting considerable concerns about the
quality of service offered by the Six Large Energy Firms. ... According to the CMA report, the number
631 https://www.gov.uk/the-warm-home-discount-scheme
632 https://www.gov.uk/winter-fuel-payment
633 https://www.gov.uk/cold-weather-payment
389/454
of recorded complaints increased six-fold between 2008 and 2014 before falling by 20% in 2015.
Complaints usually were related to billing, customer services and payments.
least one problem in UK for households
perceived ease of switching637 in UK
634
635
636
390/454
Consumer choice
The table below provides an overview of key indicators regarding consumer choice. The UK offers a
wide range of tools to foster consumer choice, which qualifies it as a highly developed market in that
regard (especially since it is also counting with modern ICT-based offerings).
Table 28-1 Consumer choice in UK (electricity, households)
Answer
Yes
Yes
(CC17)
Yes
etc.) (CC18)
The potential savings from switching suppliers in the UK slightly decreased from 2015 to 2016 as
indicated below.
Figure 379 Percentage of the current electricity bill which could be saved by switching supplier in UK

variable.
391/454
Figure 380 Type of offers for households in UK
The CMA report acknowledges a wide variation in the energy prices paid by domestic customers.
According to this report, customers could have made considerable savings (equivalent to more than 20%
of their bill) from switching a combination of suppliers, tariffs and payment methods.
28.2 Non-Household Price Regulation in UK
The UK had no energy price regulation for non-households in the period assessed.
There is no price regulation of energy prices for non-households in the UK.

the wholesale prices. Wholesale prices (for non-household consumers) on the electricity market were
high in 2008 and decrease drastically in 2009 after which have remained stable over the investigated
time period. Retail prices, on the other hand, have increased since 2010 until 2015 in part due to
increasing energy and supply component. For the gas market, wholesale prices seem to correlate with
the energy and supply component, with an increasing trend.
392/454
Figure 381 Industry retail price components for middle bands (ID and I3) and wholesale prices in UK
For the electricity market, (industry) retail mark-ups increased from -12 EUR/MWh in 2008 to between
14-29 EUR/MWh between 2009 and 2016. In the gas market, mark-ups have shown a steady increase
from -3 EUR/MWh in 2008 to 7 EUR/MWh in 2016.
638
2014
393/454
Figure 382 Mark-ups for UK, middle consumption bands (ID and I3)
As with domestic tariffs the mark up and total cost are much closer for gas than they are for electricity.
The CMA report also considered the energy prices paid by SMEs and micro-businesses. It concluded that:
“EBIT margins from retail sales to SMEs (including microbusinesses) were on average 8% over the period
– significantly higher than those on sales to domestic customers or industrial and commercial (I&C)
customers. Margins on sales of gas to SMEs (10%) were higher than those on sales of electricity (7%).”
28.3 Tariff deficit in UK
The UK had no tariff deficit between 2008 and 2016.
Tariff deficits are shortfalls of revenues in the electricity system, which arise when the tariffs for the
regulated components of the retail electricity price are set below the corresponding costs borne by the
energy companies. This does not appear to be an issue in the UK.
394/454
Annex J: T4 - Classification and definition of

interventions
Intervention category Intervention type
Accelerated depreciation
EUA ETS
Exemption & reduction -Energy tax
Exemption & reduction -Fuel excise tax
Tax expenditures
Exemption & reduction -Taxes and levies
Exemption & reduction -VAT (related to energy use)
Tax allowance
Tax credits
Grants
Direct transfer Soft loans
Others
Biofuels blending mandate
Capacity payment
Differentiated grid connection charges
Energy efficiency obligations
Feed-in premiums
Feed-in tariffs
Indirect transfer
Interruptible load schemes
Others
Power purchase agreement (PPA)
Price guarantees (cost support)
Price guarantees (price regulation)
RES quotas with tradable certificates
RD&D budgets RD&D budgets
Others Others
Accelerated depreciation
Accelerated depreciation is a measure that can be used to provide a tax advantage to firms, resulting in
foregone income to the Government. It works by changing the rate at which capital assets can be
written off in firm accounts, allowing firms to write off more than would otherwise be allowed in the
early years of the asset-life.
Accelerated depreciation can act as an important investment incentive, being advantageous in

increasing a firm’s book costs and therefore reducing the profits on which tax is payable in the short
term. Within an individual investment the nominal total tax liability should be unchanged over the asset
life, but there are benefits to the firm of using accelerated depreciation due to time preference, i.e. it
395/454
is preferable to have money now than in the future, as this can be used to generate interest or other
returns in the meantime. It is also advantageous within a wider company portfolio to help reduce taxes
paid on other incomes, and can be used to attract investors to a project where accounting rules allow
for an investor to ‘buy’ the tax advantage of accelerated depreciation.
Biofuels blending mandate

Any market price support mechanisms for biofuel in the transport sector.
Capacity payment
Electricity capacity mechanisms have be deployed by MS in order to prevent energy shortages that
could affect consumers. Capacity mechanisms are measures that allow energy providers to be paid for
maintaining their existing power plants or even for investing in new ones. This is in addition to the
normal payment they receive for providing electricity to the market.
Differentiated grid connection charges

New power plants have to pay costs associated with connecting to grid. “Shallow” costs describe the
connection to the next grid connection point. “Deep” costs include the reinforcement of existing grid
infrastructure to cope with additional generation capacity. In some cases, Governments intervene to
reduce or waive these costs for certain technologies.
Energy efficiency obligations

In an energy efficiency obligation, an energy supplier (or other entity) is given an obligation by the
Government to achieve a certain level of savings (either in energy or in carbon). Often, these
obligations include a social element requiring a certain proportion of the savings to be delivered in
poorer households.
Exemption and reduction - Energy tax

Certain customer groups can be exempted from taxes for social reasons. Some industrial customers
might be exempted because of other energy efficiency measures, e.g. sector specific demand reduction
targets. There are countries where all customers get some form of compensation to lift the financial
burden.
Exemption and reduction - Fuel excise tax

Fuels are taxed for a number of reasons, including providing an incentive for energy saving. If the fuels
are converted to other energy carriers (e.g. electricity, petrol) which in turn are taxed, any exemption
or reduction is not be calculated at the level of the primary but at the level of the secondary energy
carrier. In other words, they are not be considered as an exemption/reduction for coal/crude oil. As
heat is not taxed by additional energy taxes, exemptions from fuel taxes for CHP are also covered.
Exemption and reduction - Taxes and levies

There are several MS specific taxes and levies to finance other electricity related costs and to support
generation from renewable energy sources. Specific customers are exempted from these payments.
These exemptions most often apply to large consumers such as the energy intensive industry or low-
income customers. Some MS also put a limit on the grid fee and concession fee payments for specific
customers. These reductions are mainly granted to energy intensive industries and industrial customers
with specific characteristics.
Exemption and reduction - VAT (related to energy use)
396/454
Electricity is an input factor for production. For industrial customers, VAT payments are refundable. In
households, electricity is required to serve the basic needs. Therefore, in some countries, a reduced
rate is applied to the electricity consumption of households. There is some discussion in literature
whether this should be classified as a subsidy. We assume it is if there is a difference between the
general level of VAT and that on energy.
Feed-in tariffs
In a feed-in tariff (FIT) system, power plant operators receive a fixed payment for each unit of
electricity, heat and/or biogas generated, independent of the market price of these energy products. In
other words, in tariff systems, generators do not sell the produced electricity on the power market, but
a single buyer fulfils this role. Most countries use a differentiation according to technology, which
facilitates the development of a range of technologies due to the different level of tariffs they receive.
The specific design of the feed-in scheme may differ as well: some countries have a fixed tariff over
the complete support term, others have decreasing tariffs.
Feed-in premiums
In a feed - in premium scheme, plant operators have to sell their renewable energy on the market and
receive an additional payment on top of the market price - either as a fixed payment or adapted to
changing market prices (e.g. with cap and floor prices, sliding premium/Contract for Difference) to
limit the price risk for plant operators.
Premium schemes provide a secure additional return for producers, while exposing them to the
electricity price risk. The level of premiums is based on future expectations regarding the generation
costs of renewable electricity and the average electricity market revenues.
Free allocation of emission allowances in the EU ETS

In the context of the EU ETS, the allowances are allocated either by auctioning or by free allocation.
Installations in the manufacturing and power sector received free allocation of emission allowances
during Phase II (2008 - 2012). The allowances were grandfathered on the basis of historic emissions.
Since 2013, the power producers are subject to 100% auctioning. The only exception is modernisation of
the power sector in certain Member States. Auctioning is the default method, however in sectors other
than power generation, the continuation of free allocation allows the EU to pursue ambitious emission
reduction targets while protecting internationally competing industry from the risk of carbon leakage.
Grants
Grants are non-repayable funds or products disbursed or gifted by a public entity such as European
Union, governments, ministries, national agencies, etc.
Interruptible load schemes

In several countries, there are interruptible load schemes that provide payment to electricity
consumers that agree to be switched off remotely where there is a danger of system black outs. These
schemes are implemented additional to balancing markets. Participants have to meet high standards to
take part.
These prequalification standards only apply to energy intensive industries. The payments for capacity
are tendered in an auction, but because of the low number of eligible participants, the result of the
auction often hits the maximum price limit.
Price guarantees (cost support)
397/454
Price guarantees refer to measures that protect producers or consumers of energy by setting the price
of fuels or electricity below or higher than a reference price. Examples of the first variant include
social tariffs for electricity that protect certain target groups against too high burdens of energy costs
in total household expenditures or the provision of fossil fuels as input to electricity generation below
actual cost. The last example protects producers.
Price guarantees (price regulation)

Price guarantees refer to measures where an institution (Government, regulator…) sets the price of
fuels or electricity to a certain level, which doesn’t fully cover the total cost of the energy provided.
This type of measure applies to all final customers (may be split between residential, commercial,
industry…), not only to a specific group of customers (see definition of “Price guarantees (cost
support)”).
RD&D budget
Energy research, development and demonstration (RD&D) budgets cover various types of interventions
such as fiscal instruments (e.g. taxes), financial instruments (e.g. loans, grants), market-based
mechanisms, direct investment (e.g. public procurement), education and information campaigns, or
technology replacement programmes. 639
RES quotas with tradable certificates

In case of quota obligation schemes, Governments impose minimum shares of a particular energy source
on suppliers (or consumers and producers). Quota obligations are frequently combined with tradable
green certificates. Plant operators receive certificates for their electricity, heat and biogas, which they
may sell to the actors obliged to fulfil their quota obligation. Hence, green certificates provide support
in addition to the market price and are used as proof of compliance. A green certificate represents the
value of the energy and facilitates trade in that value.
Some countries apply what is called technology banding: distributing different amounts of certificates
according to the cost of a particular technology. This is to avoid that only the cheaper energy options
are deployed. There are also examples of Governments that apply minimum/‘floor’ prices and
sometimes prices are capped by the Government.
Soft loans
A loan or debt is the amount of money that is provided to a project by a third party under the condition
that this will be (entirely or partially) repaid during or at the end of the agreed debt term. Loan
facilities can be very helpful in case the availability of capital is a problem. Loans can cover up to 100%
of the financeable cost and are used for both renewable energy and energy saving projects. Interest
rates and repayment periods of loans have a major impact on the overall cost of projects. Especially
new technologies, smaller projects or project developers without a proven track record often
experience difficulties in obtaining commercial loans at reasonable conditions. Governments can
increase commercial viability of projects significantly by offering low interest loans or loan guarantees.
Governments can offer low interest loans for specific technologies directly through state-owned banks
or through subsidies to commercial banks. These loans can be characterised by lower interest rates
and/or longer repayment periods. Low interest loans have been applied successfully in for example
639
For more detail, see http://www.iea.org/statistics/rdd/
398/454
Spain and Germany. Governments can also offer just loan guarantees for certain projects. In that case
the Government guarantees debt repayment to the lending bank, thus reducing risk and hence interest
rate (e.g. 1 to 2%), debt term and debt service conditions of the loan.
Tax credits
Tax credits are applied to the actual amount of tax owed/payable. It is typically based on a percentage
of eligible R&D expenditures.
Tax allowances
Tax allowances (which can also be described as deductions, reliefs and exemptions) reduce the amount
of income that is taxable. It refers to the amount of money which a taxpayer is allowed to earn and not
pay tax on (taxable income), as a result of carrying out activities (in particular R&D). These are
typically expressed in the form of a, for example, 150% allowance, which allows for a firm to deduct an
additional 50% on top of the actual expenditure.
Others
Interventions in this category do not fit with any other pre-existing categories, but do relate to
investments. Examples of public interventions that fall in this category are loan guarantees, planning
exemptions, exemptions from stamp duties etc.
399/454
Annex K: T4 – Country and sector subsidies

factsheets
Country factsheets
For all following sheets: Source: Own calculations
400/454
European Union (constant prices 2017)

Support by types
Financial support (billion euros)
Number of Total Varitions 2008/16
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
interventions 2008/16 2016 - 2008 CAGR (%/y)
Support to inv estment 242 16% 5 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 7 59 1 +27% +3%
Support to energy demand 433 29% 57 56 61 59 62 61 59 59 61 536 4 +6% +1%
Support to energy savings 168 11% 3 4 5 5 5 6 8 9 7 51 3 +105% +9%
Support to production 388 26% 80 75 81 84 87 84 86 92 89 758 8 +10% +1%
Support to R&D 261 17% 3 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 40 1 +48% +5%
Total 1 492 100% 150 146 158 160 167 161 163 170 168 1 444 18 +12% +1%
Interventions distribution by types Financial support by types (billion euros)

Support to Support to
R&D; 17% investment; 180
16%
160
140
Support to R&D
Euro billions
120
100 Support to production
80 Support to energy savings
production;
60 Support to energy demand
energy
26% demand; 29% 40
Support to inv estment
20
Support to 0
energy savings;
11% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
Tax expenditures 497 33% 99 88 91 84 79 67 66 68 68 711 -31 -32% -5%
Direct transfer 434 29% 11 14 14 13 13 13 14 14 14 119 3 +26% +3%
Indirect transfer 285 19% 37 40 48 58 71 76 77 82 82 569 45 +123% +11%
RD&D budgets 261 17% 3 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 40 1 +48% +5%
Others 15 1% 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 5 0 -32% -5%
Total 1 492 100% 150 146 158 160 167 161 163 170 168 1 444 18 +12% +1%
Interventions distribution by sub-types Financial support by sub-types (billion euros)

Others; 1%
180,0
160,0
RD&D 140,0
budgets; Others
Tax
Euro billions
17% 120,0
expenditures; RD&D budgets
Indirect 33%
100,0
transfer; 80,0 Indirect transfer
19%
60,0 Direct transfer
40,0
Direct transf er; Tax expendi tures
29% 20,0
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by energy/technology
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
All energies 252 17% 47 38 38 31 21 14 14 15 11 230 -36 -76% -16%
Fossil fuels 505 34% 54 53 56 56 60 56 55 55 55 502 1 +3% +0%
Heating & cooling 33 2% 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 29 0 +1% +0%
Nuclear 35 2% 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 39 1 +28% +3%
Electricity 141 9% 16 17 18 18 18 17 18 17 18 157 1 +8% +1%
RES 526 35% 25 31 38 48 59 67 70 75 75 488 50 +203% +15%
Total 1 492 100% 150 146 158 160 167 161 163 170 168 1 444 18 +12% +1%
Interventions distribution by Financial support by energy/technology (billion euros)

energy/technology 180,0
160,0
140,0 Electricity
All energies;
120,0
Euro billions
17% RES
RES; 35% 100,0 All energies
80,0
F ossil fuels; Nuclear
34% 60,0
40,0 Heating & cooling
20,0 Fossil fuels
Electricity ;9% Heating &
0,0
Nuclear;2% cooling; 2% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
Cross sector 81 5% 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 31 0 +18% +2%
Agriculture 76 5% 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 71 1 +10% +1%
Energy industry 839 56% 91 87 93 97 101 97 99 105 102 871 11 +12% +1%
Manufacturing 93 6% 18 18 18 16 17 17 17 17 17 153 -1 -4% -1%
Households 167 11% 19 20 24 23 23 23 24 23 24 203 5 +25% +3%
Transports 162 11% 12 11 11 11 13 12 12 13 13 108 2 +13% +2%
Public 42 3% 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 4 0 +64% +6%
Non-households 32 2% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 +117% +10%
Total 1 492 100% 150 146 158 160 167 161 163 170 168 1 444 18 +12% +1%
Interventions distribution by sector Financial support by sector (billion euros)

Non-
households; 2% Cross sector; 180,0
Public; 3% 5% Non-households
Agriculture; 5% 160,0
Transports;
11%
140,0 Public
120,0
Euro billions
Transports
Households; 100,0
11% Households
80,0
Manufacturing
Energy 60,0
Manuf acturing; industry; 56% 40,0 Energy industry
6%
20,0 Agriculture
0,0 Cross sector
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
401/454
Austria
Support by types
Number of Total 2008/16
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
interventions 2008/16 CAGR (%/y)
Support to investment 8 17% 0,1 0 0,11 0,12 0,14 0,15 0,16 0,17 0,17 0,21 1,32 +109% +10%
Support to energy demand 14 30% 1,3 5 1,35 1,33 1,35 1,26 1,13 1,14 1,14 1,12 11,17 -17% -2%
Support to energy savings 1 2% 0,0 6 0,06 0,00 0,06 0,05 0,10 0,06 0,06 0,03 0,48 -41% -6%
Support to production 10 21% 1,5 4 1,30 1,31 1,19 1,10 1,10 1,21 1,32 1,31 11,38 -15% -2%
Support to R&D 14 30% 0,1 0 0,14 0,19 0,20 0,18 0,18 0,20 0,17 0,20 1,57 +93% +9%
Total 47 100% 3,1 5 2,96 2,95 2,94 2,75 2,66 2,77 2,86 2,88 25,92 -9% -1%

Support to 4
Sup port to investment;
R&D; 30% 17% 3
3 Support to R&D
Euro billions
Support to
energy
demand; 30% 1 Support to investment
production;
0
energy savings;
21% 2% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Tax expenditu res 18 38% 2,2 2 2,00 1,97 1,88 1,64 1,42 1,46 1,48 1,41 15,48 -37% -6%
Direct transfer 11 23% 0,1 6 0,17 0,12 0,21 0,20 0,26 0,23 0,23 0,24 1,84 +50% +5%
Indirect transf er 4 9% 0,6 7 0,64 0,67 0,65 0,72 0,80 0,89 0,98 1,03 7,04 +53% +5%
RD&D budgets 14 30% 0,1 0 0,14 0,19 0,20 0,18 0,18 0,20 0,17 0,20 1,57 +93% +9%
Others 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 47 100% 3,1 5 2,96 2,95 2,94 2,75 2,66 2,77 2,86 2,88 25,92 -9% -1%

3,5
3,0
2,5 Others
Euro billions
Tax
RD&D bu dgets; expenditures; 2,0 RD&D budgets
30% 38%
1,5 Indirect transfer
1,0 Direct transfer
Indirect Tax expenditures
Direct transfer; 0,5
transfer; 9%
23%
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
All energies 3 6% 0,7 6 0,56 0,48 0,44 0,28 0,24 0,20 0,23 0,15 3,36 -80% -18%
Fossil fuels 17 36% 1,2 7 1,32 1,30 1,36 1,32 1,21 1,24 1,22 1,23 11,47 -3% -0%
Heating & cooling 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Nuclear 1 2% 0,0 1 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,02 -70% -14%
Electricity 3 6% 0,2 5 0,23 0,24 0,24 0,20 0,19 0,21 0,20 0,19 1,95 -21% -3%
RES 23 49% 0,8 7 0,85 0,91 0,90 0,94 1,02 1,13 1,21 1,30 9,12 +49% +5%
Total 47 100% 3,1 5 2,96 2,95 2,94 2,75 2,66 2,77 2,86 2,88 25,92 -9% -1%

All energies; 6%
3,0
Electricity
2,5
Euro billions
RES
2,0
RES; 49% All energies
Fossil fuels; 1,5
36% Nuclear
1,0
Heating & cooling
0,5 Fossil fuels
Nuclear; 2% 0,0
Electricity; 6% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Financial support distribution by fossil fuels (billion euros)

Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Cross sector 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Agriculture 5 11% 0,0 6 0,06 0,06 0,06 0,06 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,31 -100% -60%
Energy industry 27 57% 1,7 4 1,55 1,62 1,52 1,43 1,43 1,57 1,66 1,72 14,24 -1% -0%
Manufacturing 4 9% 0,5 3 0,52 0,49 0,47 0,37 0,34 0,32 0,32 0,32 3,70 -39% -6%
Households 2 4% 0,0 6 0,06 0,00 0,06 0,05 0,10 0,06 0,06 0,03 0,48 -41% -6%
Transports 8 17% 0,7 3 0,75 0,76 0,82 0,83 0,78 0,82 0,82 0,80 7,12 +9% +1%
Public 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Non-households 1 2% 0,0 4 0,02 0,02 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,08 -100% -100%
Total 47 100% 3,1 5 2,96 2,95 2,94 2,75 2,66 2,77 2,86 2,88 25,92 -9% -1%

Non-
Agriculture;
3,5
hou seholds; 2% Non-households
11% 3,0
Public
2,5
Euro billions
Transports; Transports
17% 2,0
Households; 4% Households
1,5
Man ufacturing;
Manufactu ring
Energy 1,0
9% industry; 57% Energy industry
0,5 Agriculture
0,0 Cross sector
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
402/454
Belgium
Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Support to investment 19 29% 0,3 8 0,64 0,83 1,15 1,56 1,01 0,58 0,19 0,19 6,54 -49% -8%
Support to energy demand 21 32% 2,3 0 2,39 2,98 2,77 2,77 3,01 2,40 2,45 2,56 23,64 +11% +1%
Support to energy savings 4 6% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,05 +133% +11%
Support to production 9 14% 1,7 4 1,60 1,84 1,99 2,18 2,18 1,76 1,91 1,78 16,98 +2% +0%
Support to R&D 13 20% 0,0 0 0,00 0,06 0,16 0,22 0,20 0,16 0,16 0,17 1,14
Total 66 100% 4,4 3 4,63 5,71 6,08 6,74 6,41 4,92 4,72 4,71 48,35 +6% +1%

Support to
R&D; 20% Support to 8
investment;
29% 7
6
Support to R&D
Euro billions
5
Support to production
Su pport to 4
prod uction; Support to energy savings
14% 3
Support to energy demand
2
Support to
Support to investment
1
energy savings;
Su pport to 0
6%
energy
dem and; 32% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Direct transfer 29 44% 0,2 3 0,44 0,45 0,51 0,53 0,51 0,50 0,38 0,40 3,94 +72% +7%
RD&D budgets 13 20% 0,0 0 0,00 0,06 0,16 0,22 0,20 0,16 0,16 0,17 1,14
Others 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 66 100% 4,4 3 4,63 5,71 6,08 6,74 6,41 4,92 4,72 4,71 48,35 +6% +1%

8,0
7,0
Tax
RD&D budgets; e xpenditures;
6,0 Others
Euro billions
20% 23% 5,0

Indirect
RD&D budgets
transfer;
4,0
Indirect transfer
14% 3,0
Direct transfer; Direct transfer
44% 2,0
Tax expenditures
1,0
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
All energies 21 32% 1,6 1 1,55 1,68 1,82 1,99 1,25 0,83 0,47 0,39 11,59 -76% -16%
Fossil fuels 21 32% 2,2 9 2,32 2,73 2,57 2,61 2,77 2,33 2,54 2,59 22,75 +13% +2%
Heating & cooling 2 3% 0,0 0 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,02
Nuclear 1 2% 0,0 0 0,00 0,06 0,08 0,09 0,11 0,07 0,08 0,09 0,57
Electricity 5 8% 0,1 1 0,10 0,16 0,15 0,12 0,15 0,15 0,11 0,18 1,24 +57% +6%
RES 16 24% 0,4 2 0,66 1,07 1,45 1,93 2,13 1,53 1,51 1,46 12,18 +246% +17%
Total 66 100% 4,4 3 4,63 5,71 6,08 6,74 6,41 4,92 4,72 4,71 48,35 +6% +1%

7,0
6,0 Electricity
Euro billions
RES; 24% 5,0 RES

All energies; 4,0 All energies
32%
3,0 Nuclear
Electricity; 8%
Nuclear; 2%
Fossil fuels; 1,0
Heating & Fossil fuels
32%
cooling; 3% 0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Cross sector 7 11% 0,0 1 0,12 0,09 0,08 0,05 0,06 0,07 0,01 0,02 0,52 +20% +2%
Agriculture 1 2% 0,0 3 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,17 -64% -12%
Energy industry 22 33% 1,7 4 1,60 1,90 2,15 2,41 2,37 1,87 2,04 1,91 17,99 +9% +1%
Manufacturing 6 9% 1,9 1 1,84 2,04 1,92 1,89 1,88 1,60 1,53 1,13 15,75 -41% -6%
Households 18 27% 0,6 5 0,80 1,24 1,36 1,81 1,46 0,91 0,78 1,22 10,24 +88% +8%
Transports 5 8% 0,0 7 0,22 0,39 0,42 0,48 0,55 0,39 0,30 0,37 3,17 +432% +23%
Public 2 3% 0,0 0 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,05 +105% +9%
Non-households 5 8% 0,0 2 0,03 0,02 0,12 0,09 0,06 0,04 0,04 0,05 0,45 +231% +16%
Total 66 100% 4,4 3 4,63 5,71 6,08 6,74 6,41 4,92 4,72 4,71 48,35 +6% +1%

N on- 8,0
house holds; 8%
7,0 Non-households
Public; 3%
Cross Agriculture; 2% Public
Transports; 8% 6,0
sector;
Euro billions
11% 5,0 Transports

4,0 Households
Energy 3,0 Manufactu ring
Households; industry; 33%
27% 2,0 Energy industry
1,0 Agriculture
0,0 Cross sector
Manufacturing;
9% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
403/454
Bulgaria
Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Support to investment 1 4% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,01 0,02
Support to R&D 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 28 100% 1,1 5 0,92 1,12 1,04 0,98 1,06 1,00 1,10 1,30 9,67 +14% +2%

Support to
Support to investment; 4% 1
production ;
25% 1
Support to 1 Support to R&D
Euro billions
energy
demand; 36% 1 Support to production
0 Support to investment
Sup port to 0
energy savings;
36% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Direct transfer 9 32% 0,0 3 0,03 0,05 0,05 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,15 0,23 0,83 +785% +31%
RD&D budgets 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Others 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 28 100% 1,1 5 0,92 1,12 1,04 0,98 1,06 1,00 1,10 1,30 9,67 +14% +2%

1,4
1,2
1,0 Others
Euro billions
Tax
expenditures; 0,8 RD&D budgets
Indirect
36%
transfer; 32%
0,4 Direct transfer
Direct transfer;
0,2 Tax expenditures
32%
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
All energies 14 50% 1,0 4 0,79 0,98 0,86 0,63 0,56 0,52 0,44 0,55 6,36 -47% -8%
Fossil fuels 7 25% 0,0 8 0,08 0,04 0,05 0,05 0,06 0,07 0,20 0,30 0,93 +289% +19%
Heating & cooling 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Nuclear 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Electricity 2 7% 0,0 1 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,10 +53% +5%
RES 5 18% 0,0 2 0,04 0,08 0,12 0,29 0,43 0,41 0,45 0,45 2,28 +1918% +46%
Total 28 100% 1,1 5 0,92 1,12 1,04 0,98 1,06 1,00 1,10 1,30 9,67 +14% +2%

1,2
Electricity
RES; 18% 1,0
Euro billions
RES
Electricity; 7% 0,8
All energies
All energies; 0,6
Fossil fuels; 50% Nuclear
25% 0,4
Heating & cooling
0,2 Fossil fuels
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Cross sector 3 11% 0,0 2 0,02 0,05 0,08 0,08 0,06 0,05 0,03 0,05 0,45 +99% +9%
Agriculture 1 4% 0,0 5 0,05 0,01 0,02 0,01 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,04 0,24 -25% -3%
Energy industry 7 25% 1,0 4 0,79 0,80 0,75 0,72 0,75 0,67 0,81 0,84 7,18 -19% -3%
Manufacturing 3 11% 0,0 0 0,00 0,02 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,09 0,11 0,04 0,37 +1140% +37%
Households 6 21% 0,0 3 0,03 0,06 0,05 0,05 0,06 0,07 0,07 0,23 0,66 +695% +30%
Transports 5 18% 0,0 1 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,09 +8% +1%
Public 3 11% 0,0 0 0,00 0,17 0,09 0,07 0,13 0,09 0,04 0,10 0,69
Non-households 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 28 100% 1,1 5 0,92 1,12 1,04 0,98 1,06 1,00 1,10 1,30 9,67 +14% +2%

1,4
Non-households
1,2
Public; Cross Agriculture; 4% Public
11% sector; 1,0
Euro billions
11% Transports
0,8
Transports;
Households
18% 0,6
Energy Manufactu ring
industry; 25% 0,4
Energy industry
Households;
21%
0,2 Agriculture
0,0 Cross sector
Manufacturing;
11% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
404/454
Croatia
Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Support to production 9 41% 0,0 0 0,01 0,01 0,03 0,06 0,12 0,15 0,18 0,23 0,78
Support to R&D 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 22 100% 0,0 7 0,08 0,10 0,13 0,16 0,23 0,29 0,38 0,46 1,90 +558% +27%

Support to
inve stment; 5% 1
Support to
energy
Support to demand; 23% 0
production; Support to R&D
Euro billions
41% 0 Support to production
Support to energy savings
0
Support to 0
energy savings;
32% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Tax expenditu res 6 27% 0,0 6 0,06 0,07 0,10 0,09 0,13 0,15 0,16 0,15 0,98 +131% +11%
Direct transfer 8 36% 0,0 1 0,01 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,02 0,07 0,10 0,26 +1766% +44%
Indirect transf er 8 36% 0,0 0 0,01 0,01 0,03 0,06 0,09 0,12 0,14 0,21 0,66
RD&D budgets 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Others 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 22 100% 0,0 7 0,08 0,10 0,13 0,16 0,23 0,29 0,38 0,46 1,90 +558% +27%

0,5
0,4
Tax Others
Euro billions
expenditures;
27% 0,3 RD&D budgets
Indirect
transfer; 36%
Indirect transfer
0,2
Direct transfer
Direct transfer;
36%
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
All energies 7 32% 0,0 0 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,04 0,05 0,11 0,12 0,36 +2963% +53%
Fossil fuels 5 23% 0,0 6 0,06 0,07 0,10 0,09 0,10 0,11 0,12 0,12 0,85 +92% +9%
Heating & cooling 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Nuclear 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Electricity 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
RES 10 45% 0,0 0 0,01 0,01 0,03 0,06 0,09 0,12 0,14 0,22 0,69 +12941% +84%
Total 22 100% 0,0 7 0,08 0,10 0,13 0,16 0,23 0,29 0,38 0,46 1,90 +558% +27%

0,4 Electricity
Euro billions
RES
0,3
RES; 45% All energies; All energies
32% 0,2 Nuclear
Heating & cooling
Fossil fuels; 0,1
23% Fossil fuels
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Cross sector 5 23% 0,0 1 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,08 +179% +14%
Agriculture 2 9% 0,0 0 0,00 0,02 0,05 0,04 0,05 0,06 0,07 0,07 0,36
Energy industry 8 36% 0,0 0 0,01 0,01 0,02 0,05 0,10 0,14 0,18 0,23 0,75
Manufacturing 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Households 2 9% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,06 0,09 0,16 +22301% +97%
Transports 5 23% 0,0 6 0,07 0,06 0,05 0,07 0,07 0,07 0,06 0,06 0,56 -9% -1%
Public 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Non-households 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 22 100% 0,0 7 0,08 0,10 0,13 0,16 0,23 0,29 0,38 0,46 1,90 +558% +27%

0,5
Non-households
0,4 Public
Euro billions
Transports
Cros s sector; 0,3
Transports; 23% Households
23% 0,2 Manufactu ring
Households; 9% Agriculture; 9%
Energy industry
0,1
Agriculture
Energy
0,0 Cross sector
industry; 36%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
405/454
Cyprus
Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Support to energy demand 5 22% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Support to energy savings 4 17% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Support to R&D 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 23 100% 0,1 2 0,12 0,13 0,12 0,13 0,17 0,15 0,15 0,13 1,21 +7% +1%

Support to 0
investment;
0
22%
Support to 0
production; Support to R&D
Euro billions
39% 0
Support to
energy 0
demand; 22% 0
Support to 0
energy savings;
17% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Direct transfer 10 43% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
RD&D budgets 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Others 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 23 100% 0,1 2 0,12 0,13 0,12 0,13 0,17 0,15 0,15 0,13 1,21 +7% +1%

0,2
0,2
Indirect
transfer; 0,1
Others
17% 0,1
Euro billions
Tax
39%
Direct transfer;
43% 0,1 Direct transfer
0,0
Tax expenditures
0,0
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
All energies 3 13% 0,1 0 0,07 0,07 0,06 0,04 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,01 0,42 -85% -21%
Fossil fuels 8 35% 0,0 2 0,04 0,06 0,05 0,08 0,14 0,10 0,09 0,11 0,70 +393% +22%
Heating & cooling 2 9% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Nuclear 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Electricity 1 4% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
RES 9 39% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,01 0,03 0,04 0,00 0,09 -100% -100%
Total 23 100% 0,1 2 0,12 0,13 0,12 0,13 0,17 0,15 0,15 0,13 1,21 +7% +1%

0,2
All
energies; 0,1 Electricity
13% 0,1
Euro billions
RES
RES; 39% 0,1
All energies
0,1
Foss il fuels; Nuclear
35% 0,1
0,0 Fossil fuels
Electricity; 4%
0,0
Heating &
cooling; 9% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Cross sector 1 4% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Agriculture 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Energy industry 7 30% 0,1 2 0,12 0,13 0,12 0,13 0,17 0,15 0,15 0,13 1,21 +7% +1%
Manufacturing 1 4% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 -100% -100%
Households 7 30% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Transports 4 17% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Public 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Non-households 3 13% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 23 100% 0,1 2 0,12 0,13 0,12 0,13 0,17 0,15 0,15 0,13 1,21 +7% +1%

Cross sector;
0,2
N on- 4%
0,2 Non-households
house holds;
13% 0,1 Public
0,1
Euro billions
Transports
0,1
Households
Transports; Energy 0,1
17% Manufactu ring
industry; 30% 0,1
0,0 Energy industry
Households;
30% 0,0 Agriculture
Manufacturing; 0,0 Cross sector
4% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
406/454
Czech Republic
Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Support to R&D 13 32% 0,0 4 0,04 0,03 0,05 0,05 0,04 0,04 0,04 0,02 0,34 -46% -7%
Total 41 100% 2,1 4 1,81 2,61 2,57 2,04 2,34 2,20 2,49 2,19 20,38 +2% +0%

Support to
investment; 5% Support to 3
energy
Suppo rt to
demand; 15% 3
R&D; 32%
Support to R&D
Euro billions
2
Support to 2
energy savings; Support to energy savings
15% 1 Support to energy demand
Support to 0
production;
34% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Direct transfer 8 20% 0,0 1 0,09 0,63 0,41 0,12 0,32 0,12 0,26 0,16 2,12 +1330% +39%
RD&D budgets 13 32% 0,0 4 0,04 0,03 0,05 0,05 0,04 0,04 0,04 0,02 0,34 -46% -7%
Others 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 41 100% 2,1 4 1,81 2,61 2,57 2,04 2,34 2,20 2,49 2,19 20,38 +2% +0%

3,0
Tax 2,5
expenditures; Others
2,0
Euro billions
20%
RD&D bu dgets; RD&D budgets
32% 1,5
Direct transfer;
Indirect transfer
20%
1,0 Direct transfer
Indirect 0,5 Tax expenditures
transfer; 29%
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
All energies 6 15% 1,7 5 1,40 1,86 1,36 0,70 0,61 0,40 0,58 0,33 8,99 -81% -19%
Fossil fuels 10 24% 0,2 3 0,20 0,22 0,22 0,22 0,18 0,16 0,18 0,18 1,79 -21% -3%
Heating & cooling 1 2% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,01
Nuclear 3 7% 0,0 2 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,03 0,03 0,04 0,04 0,03 0,26 +42% +5%
Electricity 1 2% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,00 0,05 +38% +4%
RES 20 49% 0,1 3 0,19 0,50 0,95 1,08 1,50 1,59 1,68 1,64 9,28 +1115% +37%
Total 41 100% 2,1 4 1,81 2,61 2,57 2,04 2,34 2,20 2,49 2,19 20,38 +2% +0%

2,5
Electricity
All energies;
2,0
Euro billions
15% RES
Fossil fuels;
24% Nuclear
1,0
Heating & cooling
0,5
Fossil fuels
Heating & 0,0
cooling; 2%
Electricity; 2% Nuclear; 7% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Cross sector 5 12% 0,0 0 0,09 0,62 0,40 0,11 0,31 0,10 0,24 0,13 1,99 +5139% +64%
Agriculture 1 2% 0,0 6 0,06 0,07 0,07 0,07 0,05 0,04 0,05 0,05 0,53 -26% -4%
Energy industry 31 76% 2,0 5 1,64 1,89 2,06 1,84 1,97 2,05 2,18 1,98 17,66 -3% -0%
Manufacturing 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Households 1 2% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,01
Transports 3 7% 0,0 3 0,02 0,02 0,03 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,19 -1% -0%
Public 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Non-households 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 41 100% 2,1 4 1,81 2,61 2,57 2,04 2,34 2,20 2,49 2,19 20,38 +2% +0%

3,0
Transports ; 7%
Non-households
House holds; 2% 2,5
Cross Agriculture; 2% Public
sector; 2,0
Euro billions
12% Transports
1,5 Households
Manufactu ring
1,0
Energy industry
Energy 0,5
industry; 76% Agriculture
0,0 Cross sector
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
407/454
Denmark
Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Support to R&D 14 27% 0,0 9 0,11 0,19 0,17 0,15 0,16 0,14 0,14 0,09 1,25 -2% -0%
Total 51 100% 1,3 8 1,51 2,21 2,17 2,20 2,32 2,51 2,52 2,45 19,26 +77% +7%
Interventions distribution by types
Support to
Financial support by types (billion euros)
investment; 4% 3
Support to
R&D; 27%
3
Support to Support to R&D
Euro billions
2
energy Support to production
demand; 35% 2
Sup port to Support to 0
prod uction; energy savings;
27% 6% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Direct transfer 2 4% 0,0 2 0,19 0,09 0,07 0,19 0,17 0,25 0,32 0,34 1,65 +1579% +42%
RD&D budgets 14 27% 0,0 9 0,11 0,19 0,17 0,15 0,16 0,14 0,14 0,09 1,25 -2% -0%
Others 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 51 100% 1,3 8 1,51 2,21 2,17 2,20 2,32 2,51 2,52 2,45 19,26 +77% +7%

3,0
2,5
Others
2,0
Euro billions
RD&D budgets; Tax

27% expenditures; RD&D budgets
41% 1,5
Indirect transfer
Indirect
transfer; 27%
1,0 Direct transfer
Direct 0,0
transfer; 4%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
All energies 9 18% 0,7 5 0,58 0,59 0,50 0,37 0,26 0,25 0,25 0,22 3,78 -71% -14%
Fossil fuels 13 25% 0,2 2 0,22 0,42 0,40 0,39 0,40 0,36 0,34 0,38 3,15 +68% +7%
Heating & cooling 2 4% 0,0 1 0,01 0,30 0,29 0,29 0,33 0,34 0,29 0,29 2,17 +2143% +48%
Nuclear 1 2% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,02
Electricity 9 18% 0,1 7 0,36 0,40 0,41 0,49 0,48 0,57 0,61 0,60 4,10 +254% +17%
RES 17 33% 0,2 2 0,33 0,50 0,55 0,64 0,85 0,97 1,02 0,96 6,04 +330% +20%
Total 51 100% 1,3 8 1,51 2,21 2,17 2,20 2,32 2,51 2,52 2,45 19,26 +77% +7%

2,5
Electricity
All energies;
2,0
Euro billions
18% RES
RES; 33%
1,5 All energies
Foss il fuels;
Nuclear
25% 1,0
Heating & cooling
Electricity; 0,5
Fossil fuels
18%
0,0
Heating &
Nuclear; 2% co oling; 4% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Cross sector 2 4% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Agriculture 3 6% 0,1 6 0,14 0,14 0,14 0,13 0,12 0,12 0,12 0,12 1,20 -25% -4%
Energy industry 32 63% 0,9 6 1,11 1,08 1,01 1,11 1,18 1,39 1,61 1,53 10,99 +59% +6%
Manufacturing 3 6% 0,0 5 0,05 0,06 0,10 0,07 0,06 0,06 0,04 0,04 0,54 -19% -3%
Households 6 12% 0,0 0 0,00 0,73 0,73 0,69 0,77 0,76 0,57 0,57 4,83
Transports 5 10% 0,2 0 0,20 0,19 0,19 0,20 0,19 0,17 0,17 0,18 1,70 -11% -1%
Public 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Non-households 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 51 100% 1,3 8 1,51 2,21 2,17 2,20 2,32 2,51 2,52 2,45 19,26 +77% +7%

Transports; 3,0
10% Cross secto r; Non-households
4% Agriculture; 6%
2,5
Public
Households;
2,0
Euro billions
12% Transports
1,5 Households
Manufactu ring
Energy 1,0
industry; 63% Energy industry
0,5
Agriculture
0,0 Cross sector
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
408/454
Estonia
Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Support to R&D 11 21% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,04 0,05 0,04 0,06 0,20
Total 53 100% 0,4 5 0,39 0,44 0,47 0,39 0,35 0,34 0,34 0,25 3,41 -45% -7%

Suppo rt to
Support to
R&D; 21%
investm ent; 11% 1
Support to
energy 0
demand; 11%
Support to R&D
Euro billions
Support to 0
energy savings; Support to energy demand
15% 0 Support to investment
Support to 0
production;
42% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Direct transfer 18 34% 0,0 3 0,05 0,07 0,07 0,12 0,12 0,10 0,10 0,03 0,69 -4% -1%
RD&D budgets 11 21% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,04 0,05 0,04 0,06 0,20
Others 1 2% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 -100% -100%
Total 53 100% 0,4 5 0,39 0,44 0,47 0,39 0,35 0,34 0,34 0,25 3,41 -45% -7%

Others; 2%
0,5
Tax
0,4
Others
RD&D bu dgets; e xpenditures;
Euro billions
21% 25% 0,3 RD&D budgets

Indirect
Indirect transfer
transfer; Direct transfer; 0,2
19% 34% Direct transfer
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
All energies 10 19% 0,3 1 0,25 0,24 0,25 0,19 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,05 1,70 -82% -20%
Fossil fuels 18 34% 0,1 2 0,11 0,13 0,12 0,10 0,09 0,08 0,08 0,06 0,89 -48% -8%
Heating & cooling 1 2% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Nuclear 1 2% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Electricity 5 9% 0,0 0 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,02 0,04 0,04 0,05 0,03 0,21 +727% +30%
RES 18 34% 0,0 1 0,03 0,06 0,08 0,08 0,08 0,09 0,09 0,09 0,62 +673% +29%
Total 53 100% 0,4 5 0,39 0,44 0,47 0,39 0,35 0,34 0,34 0,25 3,41 -45% -7%

0,4 Electricity
All energies;
Euro billions
19% RES
RES; 34% 0,3
All energies
Foss il fuels; 0,2 Nuclear
34%
Heating & cooling
0,1
Fossil fuels
Electricity; 9% 0,0
Heating &
Nuclear; 2% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
cooling; 2%

Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Cross sector 1 2% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 -100% -100%
Agriculture 6 11% 0,0 9 0,08 0,09 0,09 0,06 0,05 0,05 0,05 0,03 0,60 -62% -11%
Energy industry 33 62% 0,3 0 0,24 0,27 0,30 0,22 0,19 0,19 0,18 0,17 2,06 -44% -7%
Manufacturing 2 4% 0,0 1 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,07 +15% +2%
Households 6 11% 0,0 2 0,04 0,04 0,05 0,07 0,07 0,07 0,06 0,00 0,41 -87% -23%
Transports 4 8% 0,0 3 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,26 +3% +0%
Public 1 2% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,02
Non-households 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 53 100% 0,4 5 0,39 0,44 0,47 0,39 0,35 0,34 0,34 0,25 3,41 -45% -7%

Public; 2%
Cross sec tor;
Agriculture ;
0,5
2% Non-households
Transports; 8% 11%
0,4 Public
Households;
Euro billions
11% Transports
0,3
Man ufacturing; Households
Energy
0,1
Agriculture
0,0 Cross sector
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
409/454
Finland
Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Support to R&D 11 24% 0,1 9 0,26 0,30 0,28 0,25 0,24 0,22 0,24 0,16 2,17 -17% -2%
Total 45 100% 2,2 8 1,97 1,93 2,22 2,07 1,97 2,21 2,30 2,19 19,14 -4% -0%

Support to 3
Support to
R&D; 24%
investment;
31% 2
Support to R&D
Euro billions
1
Support to Support to energy demand
production; 1
16%
Support to Suppo rt to 0
energy savings; ene rgy
2% demand; 27% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Direct transfer 17 38% 0,0 6 0,10 0,06 0,12 0,07 0,08 0,17 0,08 0,10 0,82 +69% +7%
RD&D budgets 11 24% 0,1 9 0,26 0,30 0,28 0,25 0,24 0,22 0,24 0,16 2,17 -17% -2%
Others 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 45 100% 2,2 8 1,97 1,93 2,22 2,07 1,97 2,21 2,30 2,19 19,14 -4% -0%

2,5
2,0
Tax Others
Euro billions
RD&D bu dgets; expenditures;

24% 29%
1,5 RD&D budgets
Indirect Indirect transfer
1,0
transfer; 9% Direct transfer
Direct transfer; 0,5 Tax expenditures
38%
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
All energies 6 13% 0,8 7 0,67 0,63 0,54 0,31 0,18 0,17 0,20 0,13 3,71 -85% -21%
Fossil fuels 13 29% 0,9 0 0,75 0,71 0,93 1,02 1,05 1,20 1,06 1,06 8,66 +18% +2%
Heating & cooling 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Nuclear 1 2% 0,0 1 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,01 0,15 +14% +2%
Electricity 4 9% 0,3 4 0,28 0,30 0,45 0,44 0,43 0,50 0,62 0,67 4,03 +100% +9%
RES 21 47% 0,1 6 0,24 0,28 0,28 0,29 0,29 0,32 0,41 0,31 2,59 +88% +8%
Total 45 100% 2,2 8 1,97 1,93 2,22 2,07 1,97 2,21 2,30 2,19 19,14 -4% -0%

All
2,0 Electricity
energies;
13%
Euro billions
RES
1,5
Fossil fuels; 1,0
29%
Nuclear
Heating & cooling
0,5
Fossil fuels
0,0
Nuclear; 2%
El ectricity; 9% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Cross sector 3 7% 0,3 4 0,29 0,26 0,24 0,23 0,26 0,27 0,24 0,23 2,35 -32% -5%
Agriculture 2 4% 0,4 1 0,32 0,30 0,29 0,33 0,33 0,33 0,28 0,27 2,86 -33% -5%
Energy industry 31 69% 1,0 7 0,96 0,96 1,05 0,83 0,67 0,75 0,82 0,70 7,82 -35% -5%
Manufacturing 3 7% 0,3 1 0,26 0,28 0,42 0,48 0,55 0,70 0,80 0,86 4,66 +174% +13%
Households 2 4% 0,0 2 0,01 0,00 0,05 0,02 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,11 -93% -28%
Transports 4 9% 0,1 3 0,12 0,13 0,17 0,18 0,16 0,16 0,17 0,13 1,34 -2% -0%
Public 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Non-households 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 45 100% 2,2 8 1,97 1,93 2,22 2,07 1,97 2,21 2,30 2,19 19,14 -4% -0%

Transports; 9% 2,5
Cross s ector; Non-households
7% Agri culture; 4%
Househo lds; 4% 2,0 Public
Manufacturing;
Euro billions
Transports
7% 1,5
Households
1,0 Manufactu ring
Energy
0,5
Agriculture
0,0 Cross sector
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
410/454
France
Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Support to R&D 14 16% 0,9 6 1,07 1,02 1,15 1,12 1,10 1,06 1,02 0,93 9,42 -3% -0%
Total 88 100% 13,01 13,73 13,31 14,61 14,91 14,36 15,81 17,41 19,98 137,12 +54% +6%

Support to
Support to
R&D; 16% 25
investment; 5%
20
Support to R&D
Euro billions
Support to Support to Support to energy savings
production; energy 10
24% demand; 47% Support to energy demand
Su pport to 0
ene rgy savings;
9% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Direct transfer 8 9% 0,2 1 0,49 0,49 0,61 0,61 0,81 1,02 0,98 0,86 6,08 +308% +19%
RD&D budgets 14 16% 0,9 6 1,07 1,02 1,15 1,12 1,10 1,06 1,02 0,93 9,42 -3% -0%
Others 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 88 100% 13,01 13,73 13,31 14,61 14,91 14,36 15,81 17,41 19,98 137,12 +54% +6%

25,0
RD&D
budgets; 20,0
16% Others
Euro billions
Indirect
15,0 RD&D budgets
Tax
transfer;
expenditures; Indirect transfer
18%
57%
10,0
Direct transfer
Direct transfer;
9% 0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
All energies 11 13% 5,0 2 5,01 5,01 4,12 2,57 1,78 2,00 2,27 2,71 30,49 -46% -7%
Fossil fuels 45 51% 5,5 3 5,65 5,29 6,74 7,32 7,01 6,98 7,49 8,05 60,06 +45% +5%
Heating & cooling 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Nuclear 2 2% 0,5 8 0,55 0,51 0,56 0,63 0,68 0,65 0,61 0,56 5,34 -2% -0%
Electricity 10 11% 0,7 2 0,73 0,67 0,63 0,67 0,76 0,89 0,98 1,76 7,82 +143% +12%
RES 20 23% 1,1 6 1,79 1,83 2,55 3,72 4,12 5,28 6,06 6,89 33,41 +492% +25%
Total 88 100% 13,01 13,73 13,31 14,61 14,91 14,36 15,81 17,41 19,98 137,12 +54% +6%

All
20,0 Electricity
energies;
13%
Euro billions
R ES; 23% RES

15,0
All energies
Electricity;
Fossil fuels;
10,0 Nuclear
11%
51%
Heating & cooling
Nuclear; 2% 5,0
Fossil fuels
Heating &
cooling; 0% 0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Cross sector 3 3% 0,3 2 0,28 0,35 0,55 0,52 0,55 0,51 0,48 0,49 4,06 +53% +5%
Agriculture 4 5% 1,0 2 1,03 1,06 2,01 1,60 1,62 1,61 1,63 1,72 13,30 +68% +7%
Energy industry 39 44% 5,7 7 6,15 6,16 6,77 7,34 7,26 7,87 8,51 9,14 64,97 +58% +6%
Manufacturing 7 8% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,02 0,19 0,97 1,19
Households 10 11% 3,4 3 4,30 3,91 3,31 2,45 2,35 3,24 3,82 4,53 31,35 +32% +4%
Transports 17 19% 2,3 8 1,95 1,70 1,76 2,69 2,40 2,37 2,62 3,03 20,91 +27% +3%
Public 4 5% 0,0 7 0,01 0,02 0,07 0,08 0,07 0,07 0,06 0,00 0,46 -100% -100%
Non-households 4 5% 0,0 1 0,01 0,09 0,12 0,23 0,11 0,11 0,10 0,10 0,88 +979% +35%
Total 88 100% 13,01 13,73 13,31 14,61 14,91 14,36 15,81 17,41 19,98 137,12 +54% +6%

Non- Cros s 25,0
households; 5% sector; Agriculture; 5% Non-households
Public; 5% 3%
20,0 Public
Euro billions
Transports
15,0
Transports; Households
Energy
5,0
House holds;
Agriculture
11% 0,0 Cross sector
Manufacturin g;
8% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
411/454
Germany
Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Support to energy demand 33 37% 14,75 14,40 15,23 14,50 16,13 13,69 13,82 13,41 13,54 129,47 -8% -1%
Support to production 27 30% 18,06 16,12 20,50 22,71 24,42 23,14 25,65 28,90 28,28 207,78 +57% +6%
Support to R&D 14 16% 0,5 4 0,66 0,67 0,78 0,75 0,83 0,82 0,85 0,85 6,76 +55% +6%
Total 89 100% 33,94 32,30 37,64 39,18 42,65 38,79 41,75 44,63 44,41 355,28 +31% +3%

Support to
Support to
R&D; 16%
investment; 8%
50
40
Support to R&D
Euro billions
Sup port to
e nergy Support to energy savings
demand; 37% 20
Support to
production;
30% 10 Support to investment
Support to 0
energy savings;
9% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Tax expenditu res 38 43% 24,12 21,96 22,77 20,66 20,75 15,96 16,07 16,00 15,40 173,69 -36% -5%
Direct transfer 16 18% 0,7 2 1,20 1,33 1,28 1,45 1,24 1,89 1,77 2,07 12,96 +187% +14%
RD&D budgets 14 16% 0,5 4 0,66 0,67 0,78 0,75 0,83 0,82 0,85 0,85 6,76 +55% +6%
Others 2 2% 0,0 1 0,03 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,03 0,16 +125% +11%
Total 89 100% 33,94 32,30 37,64 39,18 42,65 38,79 41,75 44,63 44,41 355,28 +31% +3%

Others; 2%
50,0
RD&D 40,0
budgets; Others
Euro billions
16% Tax
expenditures;
30,0 RD&D budgets
Indirect
43%
transfer; Indirect transfer
21%
20,0
Direct transfer
Direct 10,0 Tax expenditures
transfer;
18%
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
All energies 7 8% 9,1 5 6,55 6,46 5,10 3,41 1,32 1,38 1,58 1,17 36,13 -87% -23%
Fossil fuels 33 37% 10,36 9,97 9,78 9,83 9,96 8,96 9,53 9,69 9,47 87,55 -9% -1%
Heating & cooling 3 3% 0,1 6 0,40 0,71 0,82 0,91 0,75 1,12 1,16 1,32 7,33 +729% +30%
Nuclear 2 2% 1,1 1 1,13 1,10 0,95 0,90 0,87 0,86 0,80 0,73 8,44 -34% -5%
Electricity 10 11% 5,0 7 5,04 5,20 3,72 4,64 4,63 4,75 4,65 4,68 42,39 -8% -1%
RES 34 38% 8,0 9 9,20 14,39 18,76 22,83 22,27 24,11 26,76 27,04 173,44 +234% +16%
Total 89 100% 33,94 32,30 37,64 39,18 42,65 38,79 41,75 44,63 44,41 355,28 +31% +3%

energy/technology All energies; 8%
50,0
40,0 Electricity
Euro billions
RES
30,0
RES; 38%
All energies
Fossil fuels; 20,0
37% Nuclear
Heating & cooling
10,0
Fossil fuels
0,0
Heating &
Electricity; 11% Nuclear; 2% co oling; 3% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Cross sector 6 7% 0,1 5 0,21 0,23 0,25 0,26 0,25 0,23 0,22 0,25 2,05 +64% +6%
Agriculture 2 2% 0,1 5 0,36 0,44 0,51 0,47 0,46 0,42 0,45 0,47 3,74 +205% +15%
Energy industry 51 57% 21,13 19,07 23,45 25,78 27,32 26,12 28,37 31,67 31,38 234,30 +49% +5%
Manufacturing 19 21% 11,00 11,01 11,67 10,74 12,32 10,18 10,53 10,04 9,92 97,41 -10% -1%
Households 3 3% 0,2 8 0,48 0,75 0,84 0,93 0,76 1,13 1,16 1,32 7,64 +375% +22%
Transports 7 8% 1,2 4 1,16 1,10 1,06 1,35 1,01 1,05 1,07 1,05 10,11 -15% -2%
Public 1 1% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,03
Non-households 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 89 100% 33,94 32,30 37,64 39,18 42,65 38,79 41,75 44,63 44,41 355,28 +31% +3%

Transports; 8% Cross sector; 50,0
Public; 1% 7%
Agricu lture; 2% Non-households
Households; 3% 40,0 Public
Euro billions
Transports
30,0
Households
Manufacturing; 20,0 Manufactu ring
21% Energy
10,0
Agriculture
0,0 Cross sector
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
412/454
Greece
Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Support to R&D 5 11% 0,0 2 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,04 -100% -100%
Total 46 100% 2,7 2 2,30 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,26 3,30 2,86 2,98 27,42 +10% +1%

Support to
Support to
investment; 5
R&D; 11%
15%
4
4
Support to R&D
Euro billions
3
Sup port to 2 Support to energy savings
prod uction;
35%
Support to 1
energy Support to investment
demand; 37% 1
Support to 0
energy savings;
2% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Direct transfer 10 22% 0,0 1 0,01 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,02 0,02 0,00 0,09 -32% -5%
RD&D budgets 5 11% 0,0 2 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,04 -100% -100%
Others 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 46 100% 2,7 2 2,30 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,26 3,30 2,86 2,98 27,42 +10% +1%

RD&D
budgets;
4,5
11% 4,0
3,5
Others
3,0
Euro billions
Tax
Indirect expenditures; RD&D budgets
2,5
transfer; 41%
26% 2,0 Indirect transfer
1,5 Direct transfer
1,0
Direct transfer; Tax expenditures
22% 0,5
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
All energies 4 9% 1,3 4 0,98 0,99 0,88 0,56 0,23 0,14 0,13 0,10 5,36 -93% -28%
Fossil fuels 19 41% 0,6 6 0,63 0,66 1,00 1,31 1,44 0,96 0,51 0,67 7,86 +1% +0%
Heating & cooling 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Nuclear 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Electricity 5 11% 0,6 8 0,61 0,72 0,84 0,98 1,02 0,97 0,93 0,81 7,57 +18% +2%
RES 18 39% 0,0 3 0,07 0,12 0,28 0,64 1,56 1,22 1,29 1,41 6,64 +4580% +62%
Total 46 100% 2,7 2 2,30 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,26 3,30 2,86 2,98 27,42 +10% +1%

energy/technology All energies; 4,5
9%
4,0
3,5 Electricity
3,0
Euro billions
RES
RES; 39% 2,5
All energies
2,0
41% 1,5
0,5 Fossil fuels
0,0
Electricity; 11% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Cross sector 1 2% 0,0 1 0,01 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,04 -100% -100%
Agriculture 1 2% 0,1 1 0,11 0,15 0,21 0,15 0,15 0,05 0,02 0,02 0,99 -82% -19%
Energy industry 30 65% 1,6 3 1,29 1,32 1,65 2,09 2,81 1,86 1,49 1,75 15,89 +8% +1%
Manufacturing 2 4% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,02 0,04 0,08
Households 6 13% 0,7 0 0,63 0,75 0,87 1,03 1,18 1,19 1,14 0,95 8,42 +36% +4%
Transports 5 11% 0,2 5 0,24 0,27 0,25 0,22 0,09 0,17 0,18 0,20 1,85 -23% -3%
Public 1 2% 0,0 2 0,01 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,02 0,15 +37% +4%
Non-households 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 46 100% 2,7 2 2,30 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,26 3,30 2,86 2,98 27,42 +10% +1%

Cross sector;
Public; 2% 4,5
2%Agriculture; 2%
Transports; 4,0 Non-households
11%
3,5 Public
3,0
Euro billions
Transports
Households; 2,5
13% Households
2,0
Manufactu ring
Energy 1,5
Manufacturing;
industry; 65% 1,0 Energy industry
4%
0,5 Agriculture
0,0 Cross sector
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
413/454
Hungary
Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Support to R&D 9 23% 0,1 0 0,09 0,09 0,10 0,09 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,03 0,53 -71% -14%
Total 39 100% 1,3 9 1,23 1,18 1,17 1,05 1,04 1,01 1,07 0,98 10,12 -29% -4%

2
R&D; 23% investment;
18% 1
1
Support to R&D
Euro billions
1
1
Support to
energy
1
demand; 23% 0
0
Support to
0
production;
36% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Direct transfer 13 33% 0,6 1 0,54 0,38 0,45 0,45 0,53 0,51 0,55 0,49 4,51 -19% -3%
RD&D budgets 9 23% 0,1 0 0,09 0,09 0,10 0,09 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,03 0,53 -71% -14%
Others 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 39 100% 1,3 9 1,23 1,18 1,17 1,05 1,04 1,01 1,07 0,98 10,12 -29% -4%

1,6
1,4
Tax
expenditures; 1,2 Others
RD&D budgets;
Euro billions
18%
23% 1,0
RD&D budgets
Indirect
0,8
Direct transfer; Indirect transfer
transfer; 26% 33% 0,6
Direct transfer
0,4
Tax expenditures
0,2
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
All energies 4 10% 0,5 1 0,37 0,38 0,29 0,17 0,11 0,07 0,09 0,07 2,05 -86% -22%
Fossil fuels 14 36% 0,6 3 0,58 0,51 0,60 0,61 0,67 0,65 0,70 0,64 5,59 +2% +0%
Heating & cooling 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Nuclear 3 8% 0,0 9 0,09 0,09 0,09 0,07 0,12 0,11 0,09 0,09 0,83 -3% -0%
Electricity 2 5% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,05
RES 16 41% 0,1 7 0,19 0,20 0,20 0,19 0,13 0,17 0,17 0,18 1,61 +4% +1%
Total 39 100% 1,3 9 1,23 1,18 1,17 1,05 1,04 1,01 1,07 0,98 10,12 -29% -4%

energy/technology All e nergies; 1,6
10%
1,4
1,2 Electricity
Euro billions
1,0 RES
0,8
Fossil fuels;
0,6 Nuclear
36%
0,2 Fossil fuels
0,0
Electricity; 5% Nuc lear; 8% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Cross sector 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Agriculture 5 13% 0,0 7 0,08 0,09 0,09 0,09 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,09 0,81 +29% +3%
Energy industry 29 74% 0,9 5 0,88 0,98 0,99 0,92 0,91 0,88 0,94 0,86 8,31 -9% -1%
Manufacturing 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Households 1 3% 0,3 3 0,24 0,10 0,08 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,76 -100% -100%
Transports 4 10% 0,0 3 0,03 0,02 0,02 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,24 -15% -2%
Public 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Non-households 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 39 100% 1,3 9 1,23 1,18 1,17 1,05 1,04 1,01 1,07 0,98 10,12 -29% -4%

Transp orts; 10%
1,6
Agriculture;
1,4 Non-households
13%
Househo lds; 3% Public
1,2
Euro billions
1,0 Transports
0,8 Households
0,6 Manufactu ring
0,4 Energy industry
0,2 Agriculture
Energy
industry; 74%
0,0 Cross sector
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
414/454
Ireland
Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Support to R&D 14 19% 0,0 6 0,06 0,04 0,02 0,04 0,03 0,03 0,06 0,00 0,34 -100% -100%
Total 74 100% 1,7 3 1,95 2,04 2,01 2,12 2,07 2,38 2,12 2,06 18,49 +19% +2%

Support to Su pport to
R&D; 19% in vestment; 3
20%
2
Support to R&D
Euro billions
Support to
production; 1
18% Suppo rt to
energy
demand; 22% 1 Support to investment
Support to 0
energy savings;
22% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Direct transfer 31 42% 0,3 8 0,46 0,58 0,64 0,52 0,49 0,52 0,50 0,52 4,61 +39% +4%
RD&D budgets 14 19% 0,0 6 0,06 0,04 0,02 0,04 0,03 0,03 0,06 0,00 0,34 -100% -100%
Others 3 4% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 -72% -15%
Total 74 100% 1,7 3 1,95 2,04 2,01 2,12 2,07 2,38 2,12 2,06 18,49 +19% +2%

Others; 4%
2,5
Tax 2,0
RD&D e xpenditures; Others
Euro billions
budgets; 23% 1,5 RD&D budgets

19%
Indirect
Indirect transfer
transfer; 1,0
12% Direct transfer; Direct transfer
42% 0,5 Tax expenditures
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
All energies 24 32% 0,4 2 0,34 0,40 0,35 0,27 0,20 0,31 0,28 0,23 2,79 -45% -7%
Fossil fuels 21 28% 0,7 9 0,94 0,93 0,93 1,17 1,20 1,42 1,16 1,12 9,67 +41% +4%
Heating & cooling 4 5% 0,1 8 0,24 0,30 0,36 0,26 0,26 0,24 0,23 0,25 2,31 +39% +4%
Nuclear 1 1% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 -100% -100%
Electricity 4 5% 0,2 7 0,30 0,30 0,32 0,36 0,34 0,34 0,32 0,30 2,85 +13% +2%
RES 20 27% 0,0 7 0,13 0,11 0,07 0,07 0,08 0,07 0,12 0,16 0,88 +131% +11%
Total 74 100% 1,7 3 1,95 2,04 2,01 2,12 2,07 2,38 2,12 2,06 18,49 +19% +2%

2,0 Electricity
Euro billions
RES; 27% RES

1,5
All energies; All energies
32% 1,0 Nuclear
Electricity; 5%
Heating & cooling
Nuclear; 1% 0,5
Fossil fuels ;
28%
Fossil fuels
Heating &
cooling; 5% 0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Cross sector 2 3% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 +506% +25%
Agriculture 7 9% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,05 0,05 0,18 +4064% +59%
Energy industry 36 49% 1,0 8 1,25 1,19 1,10 1,10 1,11 1,34 1,19 1,14 10,50 +5% +1%
Manufacturing 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Households 14 19% 0,5 9 0,64 0,75 0,82 0,80 0,76 0,75 0,66 0,66 6,43 +11% +1%
Transports 7 9% 0,0 5 0,05 0,05 0,04 0,17 0,14 0,20 0,17 0,16 1,03 +223% +16%
Public 6 8% 0,0 0 0,01 0,04 0,04 0,02 0,03 0,06 0,06 0,05 0,31 +4598% +62%
Non-households 2 3% 0,0 0 0,01 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,04 -65% -12%
Total 74 100% 1,7 3 1,95 2,04 2,01 2,12 2,07 2,38 2,12 2,06 18,49 +19% +2%

Non- Cross sector; 2,5
households; 3% 3% Non-households
Agriculture; 9%
2,0 Public
Public;
Transports; 9%
Euro billions
8% Transports
1,5
Households
1,0 Manufactu ring
Households; Energy
0,5
Agriculture
0,0 Cross sector
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
415/454
Italy
Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Support to production 34 37% 14,21 12,49 11,79 13,37 14,25 14,04 14,18 13,77 13,18 121,28 -7% -1%
Support to R&D 14 15% 0,4 1 0,37 0,50 0,57 0,59 0,54 0,53 0,00 0,00 3,51 -100% -100%
Total 92 100% 22,48 20,67 20,52 21,88 23,99 24,62 25,10 25,02 23,99 208,28 +7% +1%

R&D; 15% inve stment; 2% 30
Support to
25
energy Support to R&D
Euro billions
demand; 35% 20
15
Support to
production; 5 Support to investment
37%
Support to 0
energy s avings;
11% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Direct transfer 3 3% 0,2 9 0,30 0,61 0,33 0,18 0,19 0,37 0,68 0,62 3,57 +113% +10%
RD&D budgets 14 15% 0,4 1 0,37 0,50 0,57 0,59 0,54 0,53 0,00 0,00 3,51 -100% -100%
Others 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 92 100% 22,48 20,67 20,52 21,88 23,99 24,62 25,10 25,02 23,99 208,28 +7% +1%

30,0
RD&D
budge ts;
25,0
15% Others
20,0
Euro billions
Tax
41% 15,0
transfer; 40%
10,0 Direct transfer
Direct 0,0
transfer; 3%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
All energies 4 4% 5,1 3 3,75 3,58 2,83 2,03 1,35 1,60 2,15 1,55 23,98 -70% -14%
Fossil fuels 36 39% 7,0 7 6,54 6,61 5,73 6,98 6,55 6,69 6,56 6,66 59,40 -6% -1%
Heating & cooling 2 2% 2,3 4 1,53 1,62 1,70 1,60 1,13 0,68 0,46 0,39 11,45 -83% -20%
Nuclear 2 2% 0,3 7 0,39 0,53 0,35 0,26 0,28 0,41 0,63 0,57 3,79 +51% +5%
Electricity 8 9% 2,6 9 2,59 2,88 2,93 2,73 3,07 2,99 2,86 2,87 25,60 +7% +1%
RES 40 43% 4,8 8 5,87 5,29 8,34 10,40 12,26 12,73 12,35 11,95 84,07 +145% +12%
Total 92 100% 22,48 20,67 20,52 21,88 23,99 24,62 25,10 25,02 23,99 208,28 +7% +1%
Interventions distribution by All energies; Financial support by energy/technology (billion euros)

energy/technology 4%
30,0
25,0
Electricity
20,0
Euro billions
RES
Fossil fuels;
39% Nuclear
10,0
Heating & cooling
5,0
Fossil fuels
0,0
Heating &
Electricity; 9% Nuclear; 2% cooling; 2% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Cross sector 6 7% 0,0 7 0,25 0,25 0,08 0,30 0,33 0,36 0,35 0,25 2,25 +273% +18%
Agriculture 5 5% 2,2 6 2,22 2,26 2,24 2,32 2,34 2,26 2,22 2,15 20,28 -5% -1%
Energy industry 56 61% 15,47 13,87 13,45 15,03 16,06 15,99 16,74 16,47 15,40 138,48 -0% -0%
Manufacturing 6 7% 0,5 0 0,41 0,41 0,41 0,40 0,42 0,39 0,39 0,38 3,71 -23% -3%
Households 4 4% 2,0 8 2,05 2,23 2,22 2,15 2,50 2,45 2,57 2,67 20,94 +28% +3%
Transports 14 15% 2,1 1 1,87 1,91 1,86 2,72 2,99 2,87 2,99 3,11 22,43 +48% +5%
Public 1 1% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,04 0,05 0,04 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,20
Non-households 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 92 100% 22,48 20,67 20,52 21,88 23,99 24,62 25,10 25,02 23,99 208,28 +7% +1%

Cross s ector; 30,0
Public; 1% 7% Non-households
Agri culture; 5% 25,0
Public
20,0
Euro billions
Households; 4% 15%
15,0 Households
Manufacturing;
7% Manufactu ring
Energy 10,0
5,0
Agriculture
0,0 Cross sector
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
416/454
Latvia
Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Support to R&D 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 39 100% 0,2 0 0,27 0,33 0,35 0,48 0,47 0,47 0,42 0,35 3,33 +75% +7%

Su pport to 1
Support to in vestment;
production; 28%
21% 1
Support to R&D
Euro billions
0
Support to Support to production
energy savings; 0
10%
Support to 0
energy
demand; 41% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Direct transfer 13 33% 0,0 0 0,02 0,08 0,07 0,13 0,08 0,14 0,07 0,03 0,62
RD&D budgets 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Others 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 39 100% 0,2 0 0,27 0,33 0,35 0,48 0,47 0,47 0,42 0,35 3,33 +75% +7%

0,6
Indirect
transfer;
0,5
13% Others
0,4
Euro billions
RD&D budgets
Tax
33% 54%
0,2 Direct transfer
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
All energies 8 21% 0,0 8 0,10 0,12 0,09 0,07 0,13 0,09 0,04 0,02 0,74 -75% -16%
Fossil fuels 12 31% 0,0 7 0,10 0,11 0,15 0,20 0,20 0,20 0,19 0,18 1,40 +174% +13%
Heating & cooling 1 3% 0,0 4 0,03 0,03 0,02 0,03 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,22 -60% -11%
Nuclear 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Electricity 5 13% 0,0 0 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,02 0,02 0,09 +927% +34%
RES 13 33% 0,0 2 0,03 0,06 0,08 0,17 0,12 0,15 0,15 0,11 0,88 +618% +28%
Total 39 100% 0,2 0 0,27 0,33 0,35 0,48 0,47 0,47 0,42 0,35 3,33 +75% +7%

0,5
Electricity
All energies; 0,4
Euro billions
21%
RES
RES; 33%
0,3 All energies
31%
0,2
Heating & cooling
Electricity; 0,1
13% Fossil fuels
Heating &
0,0
cooling; 3% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Cross sector 2 5% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,02 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,04
Agriculture 3 8% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,03 0,04 0,04 0,04 0,03 0,03 0,21
Energy industry 11 28% 0,1 6 0,22 0,22 0,22 0,28 0,27 0,27 0,27 0,25 2,16 +58% +6%
Manufacturing 5 13% 0,0 0 0,00 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,08 0,07 0,02 0,02 0,29
Households 8 21% 0,0 4 0,04 0,04 0,04 0,05 0,05 0,05 0,04 0,04 0,39 -18% -2%
Transports 4 10% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,03 +173% +13%
Public 2 5% 0,0 0 0,00 0,01 0,02 0,05 0,00 0,02 0,03 0,00 0,13
Non-households 4 10% 0,0 0 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,09
Total 39 100% 0,2 0 0,27 0,33 0,35 0,48 0,47 0,47 0,42 0,35 3,33 +75% +7%

Cross sector;
Non- 0,6
5%
households; Non-households
10% Agri culture; 8% 0,5
Pub lic; 5% Public
0,4
Euro billions
Transports
Transports; 0,3 Households
10%
Energy Manufactu ring
0,2
industry; 28%
Households; Energy industry
21% 0,1
Agriculture
0,0 Cross sector
Manufacturing;
13% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
417/454
Lithuania
Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Support to R&D 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 66 100% 0,2 8 0,42 0,47 0,54 0,87 0,63 0,58 0,60 0,75 5,14 +172% +13%

Support to
production; 1
17%
Su pport to
1
Suppo rt to
in vestment; Support to R&D
Euro billions
energy savings;
9% 41% 1 Support to production
0
Sup port to 0
e nergy
dem and; 33% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Direct transfer 33 50% 0,0 7 0,24 0,08 0,17 0,48 0,22 0,28 0,33 0,30 2,17 +362% +21%
RD&D budgets 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Others 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 66 100% 0,2 8 0,42 0,47 0,54 0,87 0,63 0,58 0,60 0,75 5,14 +172% +13%

1,0
Indirect
transfer; 0,8
14% Others
Euro billions
Tax
36%
Indirect transfer
50% Direct transfer
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
All energies 20 30% 0,1 7 0,31 0,16 0,21 0,26 0,16 0,15 0,23 0,21 1,86 +26% +3%
Fossil fuels 21 32% 0,0 1 0,02 0,03 0,03 0,21 0,04 0,02 0,02 0,22 0,61 +1571% +42%
Heating & cooling 2 3% 0,0 0 0,00 0,06 0,07 0,07 0,05 0,05 0,04 0,04 0,39
Nuclear 1 2% 0,0 6 0,03 0,01 0,00 0,05 0,06 0,10 0,11 0,11 0,54 +75% +7%
Electricity 9 14% 0,0 0 0,00 0,14 0,15 0,17 0,22 0,13 0,09 0,04 0,95
RES 13 20% 0,0 3 0,05 0,06 0,09 0,11 0,11 0,12 0,11 0,13 0,80 +333% +20%
Total 66 100% 0,2 8 0,42 0,47 0,54 0,87 0,63 0,58 0,60 0,75 5,14 +172% +13%

0,8 Electricity
R ES; 20%
Euro billions
RES
0,6
Electricity; 30% 0,4 Nuclear
14%
Heating & cooling
Fossil fuels; 0,2
Nuclear; 2%
32% Fossil fuels
Heating &
cooling; 3% 0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Cross sector 1 2% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,06 0,01 0,03 0,01 0,01 0,12
Agriculture 5 8% 0,0 3 0,05 0,04 0,05 0,05 0,04 0,05 0,05 0,03 0,38 -2% -0%
Energy industry 32 48% 0,2 4 0,18 0,33 0,35 0,59 0,47 0,40 0,43 0,49 3,48 +105% +9%
Manufacturing 6 9% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,03 +791% +31%
Households 9 14% 0,0 0 0,18 0,05 0,06 0,06 0,06 0,05 0,04 0,20 0,71 +16329% +89%
Transports 5 8% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,05 -15% -2%
Public 4 6% 0,0 0 0,01 0,03 0,08 0,10 0,04 0,03 0,05 0,00 0,34 -50% -8%
Non-households 4 6% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,02 0,04 +2438% +50%
Total 66 100% 0,2 8 0,42 0,47 0,54 0,87 0,63 0,58 0,60 0,75 5,14 +172% +13%
Non- Interventions distribution by sector Financial support by sector (billion euros)

households;
6% Cross sector;
1,0
Agriculture; 8% Non-households
2%
Public; 6%
0,8 Public
Transports; 8%
Euro billions
Transports
0,6
Households
Households; 0,4 Manufactu ring
14% Energy
0,2
Agriculture
Manufacturing; 0,0 Cross sector
9% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
418/454
Luxembourg
Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Support to R&D 6 20% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,03 0,08 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,10
Total 30 100% 0,1 4 0,12 0,13 0,14 0,21 0,14 0,14 0,15 0,15 1,32 +6% +1%

Suppo rt to
R&D; 20% Support to 0
in vestment;
30% 0
Support to R&D
Euro billions
0
Support to 0 Support to investment
production;
30% Support to
energy 0
demand; 20% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Direct transfer 9 30% 0,0 2 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,04 0,04 0,04 0,05 0,31 +94% +9%
RD&D budgets 6 20% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,03 0,08 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,10
Others 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 30 100% 0,1 4 0,12 0,13 0,14 0,21 0,14 0,14 0,15 0,15 1,32 +6% +1%

0,3
Tax 0,2
RD&D budgets; expenditures; Others
Euro billions
20% 23% 0,2 RD&D budgets

transfer; 27%
30% Direct transfer
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
All energies 2 7% 0,0 6 0,04 0,04 0,03 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,22 -88% -23%
Fossil fuels 6 20% 0,0 2 0,02 0,02 0,01 0,03 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,01 0,16 -21% -3%
Heating & cooling 3 10% 0,0 2 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,23 +33% +4%
Nuclear 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Electricity 2 7% 0,0 1 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,12 -3% -0%
RES 17 57% 0,0 3 0,03 0,04 0,06 0,11 0,07 0,07 0,08 0,09 0,58 +193% +14%
Total 30 100% 0,1 4 0,12 0,13 0,14 0,21 0,14 0,14 0,15 0,15 1,32 +6% +1%

energy/technology All energies; 7%
0,3
0,2 Electricity
Euro billions
RES
0,2
Foss il fuels;
All energies
20% 0,1 Nuclear
RES; 57%
Heating & Heating & cooling
cooling; 10% 0,1
Fossil fuels
El ectricity; 7% 0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Cross sector 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Agriculture 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Energy industry 24 80% 0,1 1 0,09 0,10 0,12 0,17 0,10 0,11 0,12 0,12 1,04 +12% +1%
Manufacturing 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Households 2 7% 0,0 3 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,02 0,24 -10% -1%
Transports 4 13% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,02 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,04 -36% -5%
Public 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Non-households 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 30 100% 0,1 4 0,12 0,13 0,14 0,21 0,14 0,14 0,15 0,15 1,32 +6% +1%

0,3
Non-households
0,2 Public
Transports;
Euro billions
Households; 7% 13% Transports

0,2
Households
0,1 Manufactu ring
Energy
0,1
Agriculture
0,0 Cross sector
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
419/454
Malta
Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Support to R&D 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 29 100% 0,0 9 0,10 0,11 0,10 0,11 0,09 0,10 0,08 0,07 0,84 -25% -4%

Suppo rt to
production; 3% 0
0
energy s avings; investment; Support to R&D
Euro billions
0
34% 41% Support to production
0
Support to 0
energy
deman d; 21% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Direct transfer 19 66% 0,0 0 0,01 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,03 0,04 0,02 0,02 0,19 +514% +25%
RD&D budgets 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Others 4 14% 0,0 0 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,02
Total 29 100% 0,0 9 0,10 0,11 0,10 0,11 0,09 0,10 0,08 0,07 0,84 -25% -4%

0,1
Others; 0,1
14% Tax
0,1
Euro billions
21%
RD&D budgets
0,1
Indirect transfer
Direct transfer;
0,0 Direct transfer
66%
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
All energies 1 3% 0,0 5 0,04 0,03 0,03 0,02 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,16 -100% -100%
Fossil fuels 3 10% 0,0 0 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,06 +268% +18%
Heating & cooling 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Nuclear 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Electricity 12 41% 0,0 4 0,06 0,07 0,05 0,08 0,08 0,07 0,06 0,06 0,56 +51% +5%
RES 13 45% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,02 0,01 0,00 0,05
Total 29 100% 0,0 9 0,10 0,11 0,10 0,11 0,09 0,10 0,08 0,07 0,84 -25% -4%

All energies; 3%
Fossil fuels;
10% 0,1
Electricity
0,1
Euro billions
RES
Electricity; 41% Nuclear
0,0
Heating & cooling
0,0
Fossil fuels
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Cross sector 5 17% 0,0 0 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,02
Agriculture 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Energy industry 10 34% 0,0 5 0,04 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,01 0,02 0,01 0,00 0,21 -97% -35%
Manufacturing 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Households 8 28% 0,0 4 0,05 0,05 0,05 0,08 0,07 0,07 0,06 0,05 0,52 +36% +4%
Transports 3 10% 0,0 0 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,06 +268% +18%
Public 3 10% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,03
Non-households 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 29 100% 0,0 9 0,10 0,11 0,10 0,11 0,09 0,10 0,08 0,07 0,84 -25% -4%

0,1
Non-households
0,1
Public; Public
Tran sports; 10% 0,1
Euro billions
10% Cross sector; Transports

17%
0,1 Households
Manufactu ring
Households; Energy 0,0
0,0
Agriculture
0,0 Cross sector
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
420/454
Netherlands
Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Support to R&D 14 23% 0,1 6 0,22 0,37 0,16 0,20 0,19 0,15 0,19 0,15 1,79 -6% -1%
Total 61 100% 5,0 4 4,77 5,86 5,42 5,06 4,37 4,49 4,59 4,83 44,43 -4% -1%

Support to Sup port to 7
R&D; 23% investment;
18% 6
5 Support to R&D
Euro billions
Support to 3 Support to energy savings
energy Support to energy demand
demand; 23% 2
Support to
production;
25% Support to 0
energy savings;
11% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Direct transfer 16 26% 0,0 4 0,05 0,11 0,03 0,05 0,04 0,12 0,07 0,13 0,65 +201% +15%
RD&D budgets 14 23% 0,1 6 0,22 0,37 0,16 0,20 0,19 0,15 0,19 0,15 1,79 -6% -1%
Others 2 3% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 61 100% 5,0 4 4,77 5,86 5,42 5,06 4,37 4,49 4,59 4,83 44,43 -4% -1%

Others; 3%
7,0
6,0
Tax 5,0 Others

Euro billions

23%
4,0 RD&D budgets
33%
Indirect
transfer; 2,0 Direct transfer
15%
Direct transfer; Tax expenditures
26% 1,0
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
All energies 13 21% 1,7 5 1,41 1,41 1,16 0,69 0,43 0,46 0,50 0,33 8,14 -81% -19%
Fossil fuels 17 28% 1,6 6 1,68 2,83 2,70 2,81 2,39 2,38 2,44 2,60 21,50 +57% +6%
Heating & cooling 1 2% 0,0 0 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Nuclear 1 2% 0,0 2 0,01 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,11 -65% -12%
Electricity 6 10% 0,6 8 0,69 0,43 0,55 0,52 0,49 0,67 0,60 0,60 5,23 -13% -2%
RES 23 38% 0,9 3 0,98 1,16 0,99 1,03 1,05 0,97 1,03 1,30 9,44 +40% +4%
Total 61 100% 5,0 4 4,77 5,86 5,42 5,06 4,37 4,49 4,59 4,83 44,43 -4% -1%

6,0
Electricity
All ene rgies;
5,0
Euro billions
RES
21% 4,0
RES; 38%
All energies
3,0
28% 2,0
Heating & cooling
1,0 Fossil fuels
0,0
Heating &
Electricity; 10% Nucle ar; 2% cooling; 2% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Cross sector 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Agriculture 4 7% 0,2 0 0,21 0,10 0,11 0,09 0,11 0,11 0,11 0,11 1,13 -45% -7%
Energy industry 39 64% 2,9 2 2,67 2,85 2,37 1,98 1,31 1,32 1,38 1,59 18,40 -46% -7%
Manufacturing 4 7% 0,0 6 0,06 0,07 0,07 0,07 0,07 0,12 0,10 0,12 0,74 +78% +7%
Households 7 11% 1,5 5 1,56 2,49 2,51 2,51 2,48 2,57 2,61 2,64 20,92 +71% +7%
Transports 3 5% 0,1 6 0,18 0,20 0,20 0,27 0,21 0,19 0,24 0,19 1,83 +16% +2%
Public 3 5% 0,0 2 0,03 0,05 0,04 0,04 0,04 0,04 0,04 0,05 0,36 +122% +10%
Non-households 1 2% 0,1 2 0,08 0,10 0,12 0,10 0,14 0,13 0,11 0,15 1,05 +21% +2%
Total 61 100% 5,0 4 4,77 5,86 5,42 5,06 4,37 4,49 4,59 4,83 44,43 -4% -1%

Non- 7,0
Public; 5% hou seholds; 2%
Tran sports; 5% 6,0
Public
5,0
Euro billions
Households; Transports
11% 4,0
Households
3,0
Manufacturing; Manufactu ring
7% Energy 2,0
1,0 Agriculture
0,0 Cross sector
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
421/454
Poland
Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Support to R&D 13 15% 0,0 0 0,09 0,13 0,15 0,10 0,10 0,08 0,09 0,03 0,78 +727% +30%
Total 86 100% 4,5 9 4,72 5,02 4,83 4,50 3,29 3,62 3,02 2,50 36,10 -46% -7%

Support to
R&D; 15%
Support to 6
investment;
30% 5
Support to R&D
Euro billions
4
Support to 3
production; Support to energy savings
23% 2 Support to energy demand
energy
Support to demand; 10% 0
energy savings;
21% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Direct transfer 54 63% 0,5 8 0,87 0,59 0,83 0,85 0,77 0,83 0,73 0,83 6,87 +42% +4%
RD&D budgets 13 15% 0,0 0 0,09 0,13 0,15 0,10 0,10 0,08 0,09 0,03 0,78 +727% +30%
Others 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 86 100% 4,5 9 4,72 5,02 4,83 4,50 3,29 3,62 3,02 2,50 36,10 -46% -7%

Tax
expenditures; 6,0
14%
RD&D
budge ts;
5,0
Indirect 15% Others
4,0
Euro billions
transfer; 8%
RD&D budgets
3,0
Indirect transfer
Direct transfer;
2,0 Direct transfer
63%
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
All energies 22 26% 3,7 4 3,33 2,96 2,35 1,56 0,88 0,82 0,85 0,59 17,07 -84% -21%
Fossil fuels 27 31% 0,4 3 0,69 0,71 0,85 1,21 0,79 0,63 0,81 1,04 7,16 +143% +12%
Heating & cooling 2 2% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Nuclear 1 1% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,03 -74% -15%
Electricity 9 10% 0,4 2 0,61 0,35 0,53 0,40 0,32 0,48 0,30 0,19 3,59 -55% -10%
RES 25 29% 0,0 0 0,09 1,00 1,09 1,33 1,30 1,68 1,06 0,68 8,25 +77804% +130%
Total 86 100% 4,5 9 4,72 5,02 4,83 4,50 3,29 3,62 3,02 2,50 36,10 -46% -7%

5,0
Electricity
4,0
Euro billions
RES; 29%
RES
26%
Fossil fuels; Nuclear
2,0
Electricity; 31% Heating & cooling
10%
1,0
Fossil fuels
Nuclear; 1%
0,0
Heating &
cooling; 2% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Cross sector 2 2% 0,0 1 0,04 0,01 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,07 -100% -100%
Agriculture 6 7% 0,1 4 0,16 0,16 0,16 0,18 0,19 0,20 0,21 0,21 1,60 +56% +6%
Energy industry 55 64% 4,4 4 4,47 4,80 4,60 4,17 2,94 3,27 2,66 2,17 33,53 -51% -9%
Manufacturing 1 1% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Households 8 9% 0,0 0 0,05 0,04 0,05 0,07 0,09 0,07 0,07 0,08 0,52
Transports 4 5% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,02 0,01 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,10 +479% +25%
Public 7 8% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,07 0,05 0,07 0,06 0,02 0,28
Non-households 3 3% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 86 100% 4,5 9 4,72 5,02 4,83 4,50 3,29 3,62 3,02 2,50 36,10 -46% -7%

Non-
Cross sector; 6,0
households; 3% 2% Agriculture; 7% Non-households
Public; 8%
5,0
Transports; 5%
Public
4,0
Euro billions
Transports
Households; 9%
3,0 Households
Energy 2,0
1%
1,0
Agriculture
0,0 Cross sector
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
422/454
Portugal
Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Support to R&D 13 24% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,00 0,04 -100% -100%
Total 54 100% 1,2 7 1,49 1,70 1,83 1,60 1,56 2,18 1,82 1,92 15,36 +51% +5%

Support to
Su pport to investment; 2% 3
R&D; 24%
Support to
energy 2
demand; 30% Support to R&D
Euro billions
1
p roduction;
22% Support to 0
energy savings;
22% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Direct transfer 11 20% 0,0 0 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,00 0,06 0,01 0,00 0,12 +4% +0%
RD&D budgets 13 24% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,00 0,04 -100% -100%
Others 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 54 100% 1,2 7 1,49 1,70 1,83 1,60 1,56 2,18 1,82 1,92 15,36 +51% +5%

2,5
2,0
Tax Others
Euro billions

24% 30%
1,5 RD&D budgets
transfer; 26%
1,0
Direct transfer; Direct transfer
20%
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
All energies 8 15% 0,6 5 0,47 0,48 0,63 0,24 0,07 0,13 0,09 0,06 2,80 -91% -26%
Fossil fuels 20 37% 0,3 7 0,39 0,40 0,42 0,47 0,47 0,75 0,69 0,65 4,61 +73% +7%
Heating & cooling 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Nuclear 1 2% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 -100% -100%
Electricity 5 9% 0,0 0 0,01 0,01 0,07 0,04 0,01 0,01 0,04 0,06 0,24 +1342% +40%
RES 20 37% 0,2 5 0,62 0,82 0,72 0,85 1,01 1,29 1,00 1,15 7,71 +364% +21%
Total 54 100% 1,2 7 1,49 1,70 1,83 1,60 1,56 2,18 1,82 1,92 15,36 +51% +5%

2,0 Electricity
All energies;
Euro billions
15% RES
RES; 37%
1,5
All energies
Fossil fuels; 1,0 Nuclear
37%
Heating & cooling
0,5
Fossil fuels
Electricity; 9% 0,0
Nucle ar; 2% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Cross sector 9 17% 0,0 0 0,01 0,01 0,25 0,01 0,00 0,06 0,01 0,00 0,36 +3% +0%
Agriculture 1 2% 0,0 8 0,07 0,07 0,07 0,07 0,08 0,08 0,08 0,09 0,69 +14% +2%
Energy industry 30 56% 1,1 0 1,28 1,49 1,32 1,30 1,27 1,82 1,46 1,53 12,58 +39% +4%
Manufacturing 2 4% 0,0 1 0,01 0,01 0,06 0,09 0,11 0,14 0,15 0,17 0,74 +1722% +44%
Households 5 9% 0,0 0 0,01 0,03 0,05 0,03 0,00 0,00 0,03 0,03 0,20
Transports 6 11% 0,0 9 0,10 0,09 0,07 0,09 0,10 0,08 0,09 0,10 0,80 +11% +1%
Public 1 2% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Non-households 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 54 100% 1,2 7 1,49 1,70 1,83 1,60 1,56 2,18 1,82 1,92 15,36 +51% +5%

Transports;
2,5
Public; 2% Non-households
11%
2,0 Public
Euro billions
Households; 9%
Cros s sector; Agriculture; 2% Transports
17% 1,5
Households
Manufacturing;
Energy industry
Energy 0,5
industry; 56% Agriculture
0,0 Cross sector
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
423/454
Romania
Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Support to R&D 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 19 100% 2,5 8 2,11 2,20 1,90 1,28 0,92 0,76 0,65 0,75 13,14 -71% -14%
Su pport to
Interventions distribution by types
production; Support to Financial support by types (billion euros)
11% R&D; 0% Support to
investment; 3
26%
Support to 3
energy savings;
16% Support to R&D
Euro billions
2
2
Support to 0
energy
deman d; 47% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Direct transfer 11 58% 0,4 2 0,16 0,32 0,45 0,29 0,30 0,20 0,08 0,11 2,32 -74% -16%
Indirect transf er 2 11% 0,5 8 0,59 0,55 0,44 0,33 0,30 0,30 0,25 0,41 3,76 -29% -4%
RD&D budgets 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Others 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 19 100% 2,5 8 2,11 2,20 1,90 1,28 0,92 0,76 0,65 0,75 13,14 -71% -14%

Indirect 3,0
transfer; 11%
2,5
Tax Others
2,0
Euro billions
expenditures;
32%
RD&D budgets
1,5
Direct transfer;
Indirect transfer
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
All energies 8 42% 1,7 5 1,52 1,37 1,10 0,79 0,48 0,40 0,30 0,27 7,97 -85% -21%
Fossil fuels 6 32% 0,3 5 0,16 0,28 0,16 0,11 0,11 0,05 0,08 0,07 1,38 -82% -19%
Heating & cooling 2 11% 0,4 8 0,42 0,49 0,40 0,36 0,32 0,31 0,26 0,41 3,46 -13% -2%
Nuclear 1 5% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
Electricity 1 5% 0,0 0 0,00 0,03 0,20 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,23
RES 1 5% 0,0 0 0,00 0,01 0,04 0,02 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,09
Total 19 100% 2,5 8 2,11 2,20 1,90 1,28 0,92 0,76 0,65 0,75 13,14 -71% -14%

RES; 5%
Electricity; 5%
Nucle ar; 5% 2,5
Electricity
2,0
Euro billions
Heating & RES

cooling; 11%
42% Nuclear
Foss il fuels; 1,0
32% Heating & cooling
0,5
Fossil fuels
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Cross sector 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Agriculture 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Energy industry 12 63% 2,1 7 1,90 1,87 1,68 1,03 0,68 0,59 0,56 0,68 11,18 -69% -13%
Manufacturing 1 5% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,04 0,11 0,11 0,11 0,00 0,00 0,36
Households 3 16% 0,3 5 0,14 0,24 0,12 0,09 0,09 0,03 0,05 0,03 1,14 -91% -26%
Transports 3 16% 0,0 6 0,06 0,08 0,06 0,04 0,04 0,03 0,04 0,04 0,46 -35% -5%
Public 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Non-households 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 19 100% 2,5 8 2,11 2,20 1,90 1,28 0,92 0,76 0,65 0,75 13,14 -71% -14%

3,0
Non-households
2,5
Public
Transports; 2,0
Euro billions
Transports
16%
1,5 Households
Households;
Manufactu ring
16% Energy 1,0
0,5
Manufacturing;
Agriculture
5% 0,0 Cross sector
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
424/454
Slovakia
Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Support to R&D 13 29% 0,0 2 0,02 0,02 0,03 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,00 0,02 0,17 +3% +0%
Total 45 100% 0,9 3 0,78 0,93 0,99 0,93 0,81 0,89 1,05 1,07 8,40 +15% +2%

Suppo rt to 1
Sup port to investm ent;
R &D; 29% 13% 1
Support to R&D
Euro billions
1
1
Support to Support to energy savings
energy 0
deman d; 31%
Support to Support to 0
production; energy savings;
24% 2% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Direct transfer 15 33% 0,0 7 0,11 0,17 0,20 0,18 0,14 0,13 0,25 0,25 1,50 +260% +17%
RD&D budgets 13 29% 0,0 2 0,02 0,02 0,03 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,00 0,02 0,17 +3% +0%
Others 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 45 100% 0,9 3 0,78 0,93 0,99 0,93 0,81 0,89 1,05 1,07 8,40 +15% +2%

1,2
1,0
Tax
0,8
Euro billions
RD&D bu dgets; 22%

29%
RD&D budgets
0,6
Direct transfer;
Indirect transfer
Indirect 33% 0,4 Direct transfer
transfer;
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
All energies 4 9% 0,6 7 0,48 0,47 0,36 0,23 0,09 0,10 0,12 0,08 2,59 -88% -23%
Fossil fuels 16 36% 0,1 7 0,18 0,22 0,17 0,19 0,25 0,25 0,26 0,26 1,96 +52% +5%
Heating & cooling 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Nuclear 4 9% 0,0 7 0,07 0,07 0,12 0,14 0,12 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,89 +42% +4%
Electricity 6 13% 0,0 0 0,00 0,03 0,05 0,04 0,08 0,08 0,09 0,13 0,50 +170508% +154%
RES 15 33% 0,0 1 0,06 0,15 0,29 0,34 0,27 0,35 0,49 0,49 2,46 +3817% +58%
Total 45 100% 0,9 3 0,78 0,93 0,99 0,93 0,81 0,89 1,05 1,07 8,40 +15% +2%

All energies; 9%
1,0
Electricity
0,8
Euro billions
RES
RES; 33%
0,6 All energies
Fossil fuels;
36% Nuclear
0,4
Heating & cooling
Electricity; 0,2
13% Fossil fuels
0,0
N uclear; 9% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Cross sector 6 13% 0,0 9 0,13 0,19 0,12 0,13 0,10 0,10 0,22 0,18 1,25 +113% +10%
Agriculture 1 2% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Energy industry 25 56% 0,8 5 0,65 0,75 0,87 0,79 0,61 0,69 0,73 0,74 6,67 -13% -2%
Manufacturing 2 4% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,05 0,07 +63382% +124%
Households 4 9% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,08 0,07 0,08 0,08 0,31 +16111% +89%
Transports 4 9% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,05
Public 1 2% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,02
Non-households 2 4% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,02
Total 45 100% 0,9 3 0,78 0,93 0,99 0,93 0,81 0,89 1,05 1,07 8,40 +15% +2%

Non-
households; 4%
1,2
Public; 2% Non-households
Transp orts; 9% 1,0
Cross Public
Agriculture; 2%
sector; 0,8
Euro billions
13% Transports
Households; 9%
0,6 Households
Energy 0,4
4%
0,2
Agriculture
0,0 Cross sector
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
425/454
Slovenia
Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Support to energy demand 7 28% 0,0 0 0,06 0,09 0,06 0,05 0,06 0,04 0,07 0,07 0,50
Support to R&D 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 25 100% 0,2 8 0,27 0,32 0,29 0,27 0,25 0,26 0,30 0,28 2,52 +2% +0%

Support to
investment; 0
16%
0
Support to
production; 0 Support to R&D
Euro billions
40%
Support to
energy 0 Support to energy demand
demand; 28%
Support to 0
energy savings;
16% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Direct transfer 10 40% 0,0 7 0,06 0,06 0,07 0,07 0,05 0,06 0,05 0,05 0,55 -25% -3%
RD&D budgets 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Others 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 25 100% 0,2 8 0,27 0,32 0,29 0,27 0,25 0,26 0,30 0,28 2,52 +2% +0%

0,4
0,3
Tax 0,3 Others
Euro billions
Indirect expenditures;
32%
0,2 RD&D budgets
transfer; 28%
0,1 Direct transfer
Direct tran sfer; Tax expenditures
40% 0,1
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
All energies 3 12% 0,1 8 0,13 0,14 0,12 0,08 0,04 0,05 0,06 0,05 0,86 -75% -16%
Fossil fuels 8 32% 0,0 4 0,08 0,10 0,07 0,06 0,06 0,06 0,08 0,08 0,62 +119% +10%
Heating & cooling 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Nuclear 1 4% 0,0 1 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,08 -16% -2%
Electricity 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
RES 13 52% 0,0 5 0,05 0,07 0,09 0,12 0,14 0,15 0,15 0,15 0,97 +221% +16%
Total 25 100% 0,2 8 0,27 0,32 0,29 0,27 0,25 0,26 0,30 0,28 2,52 +2% +0%

All 0,3
energies; Electricity
12% 0,3
Euro billions
RES
0,2
All energies
Fossil fuels; 0,2
RES; 52%
32%
Nuclear
0,1
Heating & cooling
0,1 Fossil fuels
0,0
Nuclear; 4% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Cross sector 1 4% 0,0 0 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,04
Agriculture 1 4% 0,0 0 0,01 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,14
Energy industry 11 44% 0,2 5 0,18 0,20 0,20 0,18 0,15 0,18 0,19 0,18 1,71 -28% -4%
Manufacturing 1 4% 0,0 0 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,08
Households 4 16% 0,0 2 0,01 0,02 0,02 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,22 +77% +7%
Transports 4 16% 0,0 0 0,03 0,05 0,02 0,02 0,03 0,02 0,04 0,04 0,24
Public 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Non-households 3 12% 0,0 1 0,01 0,01 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,00 0,10 -71% -14%
Total 25 100% 0,2 8 0,27 0,32 0,29 0,27 0,25 0,26 0,30 0,28 2,52 +2% +0%

households; 4% Non-households
Agriculture; 4% 0,3
12% Public
0,3
Euro billions
Transports
0,2
Households
Transports;
16%
0,2
Manufactu ring
Energy
0,1
Households; industry; 44% Energy industry
16% 0,1 Agriculture
0,0 Cross sector
Manufacturing;
4% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
426/454
Spain
Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Support to production 16 22% 12,22 13,63 14,39 14,91 16,13 15,64 12,26 12,91 11,20 123,30 -8% -1%
Support to R&D 14 19% 0,0 9 0,14 0,15 0,27 0,16 0,07 0,10 0,11 0,08 1,18 -7% -1%
Total 73 100% 15,46 17,10 18,49 18,29 19,45 18,78 15,22 16,28 14,32 153,39 -7% -1%

R&D; 19% investment; 25
26%
20
Support to R&D
Euro billions
Support to 10
production; Support to energy demand
22%
Support to
energy
Suppo rt to 0
demand; 21%
energy savings;
12% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Direct transfer 30 41% 1,0 4 1,81 1,86 1,57 1,14 1,04 1,07 1,33 1,03 11,90 -1% -0%
RD&D budgets 14 19% 0,0 9 0,14 0,15 0,27 0,16 0,07 0,10 0,11 0,08 1,18 -7% -1%
Others 1 1% 0,0 0 0,00 0,15 0,21 0,24 0,24 0,25 0,00 0,00 1,09
Total 73 100% 15,46 17,10 18,49 18,29 19,45 18,78 15,22 16,28 14,32 153,39 -7% -1%

Others; 1%
25,0
Tax 20,0
RD&D
budgets;
Euro billions
19%
Indirect
19% 41% Direct transfer
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
All energies 15 21% 3,3 8 2,45 2,39 2,04 1,51 1,00 0,98 1,39 1,00 16,14 -70% -14%
Fossil fuels 21 29% 6,1 2 6,93 7,75 7,22 7,64 6,59 5,29 5,42 4,98 57,95 -19% -3%
Heating & cooling 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Nuclear 1 1% 0,0 2 0,03 0,00 0,00 0,03 0,02 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,12 -61% -11%
Electricity 2 3% 0,0 0 0,01 0,01 0,06 0,01 0,00 0,01 0,03 0,02 0,16 +308% +19%
RES 34 47% 5,9 3 7,68 8,33 8,98 10,27 11,16 8,93 9,44 8,31 79,02 +40% +4%
Total 73 100% 15,46 17,10 18,49 18,29 19,45 18,78 15,22 16,28 14,32 153,39 -7% -1%

20,0 Electricity
All energies;
Euro billions
RES
21% 15,0
29%
Heating & cooling
5,0
Fossil fuels
0,0
Electricity; 3% Nuclear; 1% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Cross sector 3 4% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,24 0,00 0,25
Agriculture 4 5% 0,7 2 0,87 1,16 0,68 0,74 0,52 0,46 0,50 0,50 6,15 -30% -4%
Energy industry 50 68% 12,52 14,02 14,97 15,38 16,50 15,87 12,52 13,15 11,42 126,35 -9% -1%
Manufacturing 3 4% 0,3 0 0,45 0,46 0,56 0,54 0,69 0,56 0,52 0,51 4,59 +71% +7%
Households 6 8% 0,2 3 0,19 0,19 0,27 0,37 0,69 0,68 0,77 0,68 4,05 +202% +15%
Transports 6 8% 1,6 9 1,56 1,69 1,40 1,29 1,00 1,00 1,10 1,20 11,92 -29% -4%
Public 1 1% 0,0 1 0,01 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,07 -100% -100%
Non-households 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 73 100% 15,46 17,10 18,49 18,29 19,45 18,78 15,22 16,28 14,32 153,39 -7% -1%

Public; 1% 25,0
Cross sector;
Transports; 8% 4% Agriculture; 5% Non-households
20,0 Public
Households; 8%
Euro billions
Transports
Manufacturing; 15,0
4% Households
10,0 Manufactu ring
Energy
5,0
Agriculture
0,0 Cross sector
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
427/454
Sweden
Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Support to R&D 14 23% 0,1 1 0,17 0,17 0,14 0,14 0,15 0,17 0,17 0,17 1,39 +52% +5%
Total 60 100% 4,6 8 4,46 4,18 3,69 3,57 3,61 3,50 3,44 3,67 34,80 -22% -3%

Support to
Support to 5
inve stment;
R&D; 23%
12%
4
Support to R&D
Euro billions
2
production; 1 Support to investment
energy
20% demand; 45%
0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Direct transfer 7 12% 0,1 8 0,27 0,19 0,21 0,16 0,16 0,14 0,10 0,14 1,55 -19% -3%
Indirect transf er 6 10% 0,0 1 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,02 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,11 -43% -7%
RD&D budgets 14 23% 0,1 1 0,17 0,17 0,14 0,14 0,15 0,17 0,17 0,17 1,39 +52% +5%
Others 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 60 100% 4,6 8 4,46 4,18 3,69 3,57 3,61 3,50 3,44 3,67 34,80 -22% -3%

5,0
4,0
Others
Euro billions
RD&D budgets;
Tax
Indirect expenditures; Indirect transfer
55%
2,0
transfer; 10%
Direct transfer
Direct transfer;
12% 0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
All energies 5 8% 0,6 8 0,64 0,51 0,43 0,29 0,28 0,29 0,34 0,26 3,71 -62% -11%
Fossil fuels 27 45% 1,8 9 1,76 1,54 1,18 1,17 1,13 1,08 0,97 1,02 11,75 -46% -7%
Heating & cooling 1 2% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 -100% -100%
Nuclear 3 5% 0,0 4 0,04 0,04 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,02 0,02 0,28 -47% -8%
Electricity 6 10% 1,8 0 1,68 1,73 1,69 1,74 1,71 1,60 1,58 1,57 15,09 -13% -2%
RES 18 30% 0,2 6 0,33 0,36 0,36 0,34 0,46 0,51 0,52 0,81 3,95 +207% +15%
Total 60 100% 4,6 8 4,46 4,18 3,69 3,57 3,61 3,50 3,44 3,67 34,80 -22% -3%
Interventions distribution by All

Financial support by energy/technology (billion euros)
energy/technology energies ;
5,0
8%
4,0 Electricity
Euro billions
RES
RES; 30% 3,0
All energies
45%
Heating & cooling
1,0
Electricity; 10% Fossil fuels
Nuc lear; 5%
0,0
Heating &
cooling; 2% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Cross sector 2 3% 0,0 1 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,03 0,02 0,03 0,02 0,02 0,19 +44% +5%
Agriculture 5 8% 0,2 2 0,22 0,22 0,19 0,15 0,18 0,17 0,11 0,15 1,63 -33% -5%
Energy industry 36 60% 1,6 2 1,68 1,62 1,18 1,13 1,11 1,09 1,07 1,04 11,56 -36% -5%
Manufacturing 5 8% 2,1 3 1,91 1,64 1,59 1,61 1,61 1,48 1,44 1,38 14,78 -35% -5%
Households 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Transports 11 18% 0,5 9 0,52 0,59 0,60 0,54 0,58 0,63 0,71 1,00 5,75 +68% +7%
Public 1 2% 0,1 0 0,10 0,11 0,10 0,10 0,11 0,10 0,09 0,08 0,89 -18% -2%
Non-households 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 60 100% 4,6 8 4,46 4,18 3,69 3,57 3,61 3,50 3,44 3,67 34,80 -22% -3%

C ross sector;
5,0
Public; 2%
3% Non-households
Agriculture; 8%
4,0 Public
Euro billions
Households; 0% 3,0
18%
Households
Manufacturing;
8%
2,0 Manufactu ring
Energy
1,0
Agriculture
0,0 Cross sector
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
428/454
United Kingdom
Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Support to energy demand 27 31% 14,40 14,63 15,86 15,72 15,97 14,85 14,54 14,24 14,14 134,36 -2% -0%
Support to R&D 14 16% 0,2 1 0,35 0,65 0,43 0,39 0,48 0,39 0,43 0,45 3,77 +116% +10%
Total 87 100% 24,55 24,23 25,73 24,62 25,68 25,16 25,77 27,86 26,30 229,89 +7% +1%

R&D; 16% investment; 5% 30
25
Support to
energy Support to R&D
Euro billions
demand ; 31%
20
15
Suppo rt to 5 Support to investment
produ ction; Support to
40% e nergy savings; 0
8% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Direct transfer 13 15% 5,6 2 6,02 6,08 4,47 4,83 4,83 4,80 4,74 4,63 46,02 -18% -2%
RD&D budgets 14 16% 0,2 1 0,35 0,65 0,43 0,39 0,48 0,39 0,43 0,45 3,77 +116% +10%
Others 2 2% 0,0 4 0,04 0,03 0,03 0,03 1,26 1,23 1,46 0,01 4,14 -77% -17%
Total 87 100% 24,55 24,23 25,73 24,62 25,68 25,16 25,77 27,86 26,30 229,89 +7% +1%

Others; 2%
30,0
RD&D
25,0
budgets; Others
20,0
Euro billions
16% Tax
Indirect 44% 15,0
Direct Tax expenditures
5,0
transfer;
15%
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
All energies 9 10% 5,4 1 4,61 4,58 3,16 2,09 1,95 1,92 1,92 0,56 26,20 -90% -25%
Fossil fuels 38 44% 12,68 12,00 12,96 12,55 13,06 12,32 11,85 12,14 11,62 111,17 -8% -1%
Heating & cooling 4 5% 0,0 1 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,07 0,15 0,37 0,52 1,14 +7379% +71%
Nuclear 2 2% 1,2 9 1,63 1,61 1,57 2,01 2,11 2,12 2,25 2,27 16,87 +76% +7%
Electricity 8 9% 3,1 7 3,66 4,03 4,42 4,25 2,99 3,14 2,93 2,89 31,48 -9% -1%
RES 26 30% 1,9 9 2,33 2,54 2,92 4,26 5,73 6,58 8,26 8,43 43,04 +324% +20%
Total 87 100% 24,55 24,23 25,73 24,62 25,68 25,16 25,77 27,86 26,30 229,89 +7% +1%

energy/technology All energies;
30,0
10%
25,0
Electricity
20,0
Euro billions
RES; 30%
RES
15,0 All energies
Fossil fuels; Nuclear
44% 10,0
Heating & cooling
Electricity; 9%
5,0
Fossil fuels
Nuclear; 2% 0,0
Heating &
cooling; 5% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Cross sector 5 6% 1,6 8 1,48 1,47 1,69 1,80 1,75 1,86 1,76 1,56 15,04 -7% -1%
Agriculture 1 1% 1,2 8 1,34 1,30 1,31 1,75 1,71 1,59 1,70 1,66 13,65 +29% +3%
Energy industry 51 59% 9,4 1 8,68 8,97 8,34 9,17 8,73 9,61 11,96 11,78 86,65 +25% +3%
Manufacturing 7 8% 1,8 4 2,04 2,23 2,13 1,79 1,98 1,83 2,15 2,27 18,26 +23% +3%
Households 15 17% 8,4 6 8,88 10,20 9,42 9,23 9,34 9,24 8,65 7,47 80,89 -12% -2%
Transports 8 9% 1,8 7 1,81 1,55 1,72 1,95 1,66 1,64 1,64 1,57 15,41 -16% -2%
Public 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Non-households 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 87 100% 24,55 24,23 25,73 24,62 25,68 25,16 25,77 27,86 26,30 229,89 +7% +1%

Transports; 9% Cross sector;
30,0
6%
25,0
Public
20,0
Euro billions
Transports
Households; 15,0 Households
17%
Manufactu ring
Energy 10,0
Manufacturing; industry; 59% Energy industry
8% 5,0
Agriculture
0,0 Cross sector
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
429/454
Norway
Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Support to R&D 14 27% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 52 100% 0,2 1 0,15 0,20 0,19 0,19 0,18 0,20 0,22 0,24 1,79 +15% +2%

Support to
Support to 0
investment; 6%
R&D; 27%
0
Support to R&D
Euro billions
0
0
Su pport to
Support to 0
prod uction; 4% Support to energy demand
energy
demand; 50% Support to investment
0
Support to
energy savings; 0
13%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Direct transfer 7 13% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
RD&D budgets 14 27% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Others 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 52 100% 0,2 1 0,15 0,20 0,19 0,19 0,18 0,20 0,22 0,24 1,79 +15% +2%

0,3
0,3
Others
0,2
Euro billions
RD&D bu dgets;
27% RD&D budgets
Tax
0,2
Indirect 56%
Direct 0,1 Direct transfer
transfer; 4%
transfer;
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
All energies 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Fossil fuels 9 17% 0,2 1 0,15 0,20 0,19 0,19 0,18 0,20 0,22 0,24 1,79 +15% +2%
Heating & cooling 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Nuclear 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Electricity 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
RES 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 9 17% 0,2 1 0,15 0,20 0,19 0,19 0,18 0,20 0,22 0,24 1,79 +15% +2%

0,3
Electricity
0,2
Euro billions
RES
0,2 All energies
Nuclear
0,1
Heating & cooling
Fossil fuels; 0,1
17%
Fossil fuels
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Cross sector 2 4% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Agriculture 5 10% 0,0 2 0,02 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,12 -6% -1%
Energy industry 23 44% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Manufacturing 4 8% 0,0 0 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,06 +190% +14%
Households 5 10% 0,1 0 0,03 0,08 0,07 0,07 0,06 0,08 0,10 0,11 0,69 +10% +1%
Transports 11 21% 0,1 0 0,10 0,10 0,09 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,11 0,11 0,91 +17% +2%
Public 1 2% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Non-households 1 2% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 52 100% 0,2 1 0,15 0,20 0,19 0,19 0,18 0,20 0,22 0,24 1,79 +15% +2%

households; 2% 4% Non-households
Public; 2%
Agriculture; 0,3
10% Public
0,2
Euro billions
Transports
Transports; 21%
0,2 Households
Manufactu ring
Households; Energy 0,1
0,1
Agriculture
Manufacturing;
0,0 Cross sector
8% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
430/454
Switzerland
Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Support to R&D 14 36% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 39 100% 0,3 0 0,34 0,55 0,54 1,06 1,06 1,21 1,37 1,42 7,87 +369% +21%

Support to
investment; 3% 2
1
Support to
R&D; 36% 1
Support to R&D
Euro billions
Support to
1
demand; 41% 1
1
0
Support to
0
production ; 5% Support to 0
energy s avings;
15% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Direct transfer 7 18% 0,0 9 0,09 0,26 0,23 0,25 0,27 0,30 0,33 0,39 2,21 +344% +20%
RD&D budgets 14 36% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Others 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 39 100% 0,3 0 0,34 0,55 0,54 1,06 1,06 1,21 1,37 1,42 7,87 +369% +21%

1,6
1,4
1,2 Others
Euro billions
Tax 1,0
RD&D budgets; expenditures; RD&D budgets
36% 41% 0,8
Indirect transfer
0,6
Direct transfer
0,4
Indirect transfer; 0,2
transfer; 5% 18%
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
All energies 6 15% 0,0 9 0,09 0,26 0,23 0,25 0,27 0,30 0,33 0,39 2,21 +344% +20%
Fossil fuels 16 41% 0,2 1 0,21 0,23 0,28 0,72 0,68 0,74 0,81 0,66 4,54 +207% +15%
Heating & cooling 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Nuclear 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Electricity 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
RES 3 8% 0,0 0 0,04 0,06 0,03 0,08 0,12 0,17 0,23 0,37 1,11
Total 25 64% 0,3 0 0,34 0,55 0,54 1,06 1,06 1,21 1,37 1,42 7,87 +369% +21%

1,4
RES; 8% Electricity
1,2
Euro billions
1,0 RES
15%
41% 0,4 Heating & cooling
0,2 Fossil fuels
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Cross sector 8 21% 0,0 3 0,05 0,07 0,11 0,54 0,58 0,64 0,70 0,55 3,28 +1584% +42%
Agriculture 4 10% 0,0 6 0,06 0,06 0,06 0,06 0,06 0,06 0,06 0,06 0,55 +4% +0%
Energy industry 17 44% 0,0 0 0,04 0,06 0,03 0,08 0,12 0,17 0,23 0,37 1,11
Manufacturing 3 8% 0,0 5 0,03 0,02 0,03 0,03 0,01 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,21 -81% -19%
Households 2 5% 0,0 5 0,05 0,22 0,19 0,21 0,19 0,22 0,25 0,32 1,72 +503% +25%
Transports 3 8% 0,0 8 0,08 0,09 0,09 0,10 0,09 0,08 0,09 0,09 0,79 +14% +2%
Public 1 3% 0,0 1 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,06 -38% -6%
Non-households 1 3% 0,0 2 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,15 -35% -5%
Total 39 100% 0,3 0 0,34 0,55 0,54 1,06 1,06 1,21 1,37 1,42 7,87 +369% +21%

Public; 3% Non- 1,6
households; 3%
1,4 Non-households
Transports; 8%
1,2 Public
Households; 5%
Euro billions
Cros s sector; 1,0 Transports

Manufacturing; 21% Households
0,8
8%
Agricu lture; 0,6 Manufactu ring
10%
0,4 Energy industry
Energy 0,2 Agriculture
industry; 44%
0,0 Cross sector
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
431/454
Sector factsheets
For all following sheets: Source: Own calculations
432/454
Agriculture - European Union (constant prices 2017)

Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
Support to inv estment 16 21% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 +675% +29%
Support to energy demand 41 54% 7.0 7.3 7.6 8.2 8.3 8.1 7.7 7.7 7.7 69.6 0.7 +10% +1%
Support to energy savings 6 8% 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 -19% -3%
Support to production 13 17% 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.1 0.0 +12% +1%
Support to R&D 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 76 100% 7.2 7.5 7.8 8.4 8.5 8.2 7.8 7.9 7.9 71.2 0.7 +10% +1%

production; R&D; 0% S upport to
9
17% investment; 8
21% 7
S upport to Support to R&D
Euro billions
6
energy savings;
8%
2
1
Support to 0
energy
demand; 54% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
Tax expenditures 47 62% 7.1 7.4 7.7 8.3 8.4 8.2 7.8 7.8 7.8 70.7 0.7 +10% +1%
Direct transfer 28 37% 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 +37% +4%
Indirect transfer 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
RD&D budgets 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Others 1 1% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 76 100% 7.2 7.5 7.8 8.4 8.5 8.2 7.8 7.9 7.9 71.2 0.7 +10% +1%
Indirect Others;
transfer; Interventions distribution
RD&D budgets; by sub-types 1% Financial support by sub-types (billion euros)
0% 0%
9.0
8.5
Others
8.0
Euro billions
Direct transfer; RD&D budgets

37% Tax 7.5
62% 7.0 Direct transfer
6.5 Tax expendi tures
6.0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
All energies 16 21% 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.5 -0.1 -35% -5%
Fossil fuels 38 50% 6.8 7.1 7.3 7.9 8.0 7.8 7.5 7.6 7.6 67.7 0.9 +13% +1%
Heating & cooling 1 1% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -100% -100%
Nuclear 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Electricity 1 1% 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.0 +7% +1%
RES 20 26% 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 -9% -1%
Total 76 100% 7.2 7.5 7.8 8.4 8.5 8.2 7.8 7.9 7.9 71.2 0.7 +10% +1%

energy/technology 9.0
8.0
7.0 Electricity
All energies;
Euro billions
6.0 RES
RES ; 26% 21%
5.0
All energies
Electricity; 1% 4.0
F ossil fuels; Nuclear
Nuclear; 0% 3.0
50%
Heating & 2.0 Heating & cooling
cooling; 1%
1.0 Fossil fuels
0.0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
Austria 5 7% 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 -0.1 -100% -60%
Belgium 1 1% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 -64% -12%
Bulgaria 1 1% 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 -25% -3%
Croatia 2 3% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1
Cyprus 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Czech Republic 1 1% 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 -26% -4%
Denmark 3 4% 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.0 -25% -4%
Estonia 6 8% 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.6 -0.1 -62% -11%
Finland 2 3% 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 2.9 -0.1 -33% -5%
France 4 5% 1.0 1.0 1.1 2.0 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 13.3 0.7 +68% +7%
Germany 2 3% 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 3.7 0.3 +205% +15%
Greece 1 1% 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 -0.1 -82% -19%
Hungary 5 7% 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.0 +29% +3%
Ireland 7 9% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 +4064% +59%
Italy 5 7% 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 20.3 -0.1 -5% -1%
Latvia 3 4% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0
Lithuania 5 7% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 -2% -0%
Luxembourg 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Malta 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Netherlands 4 5% 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.1 -0.1 -45% -7%
Poland 6 8% 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.6 0.1 +56% +6%
Portugal 1 1% 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.0 +14% +2%
Romania 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Slovakia 1 1% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Slovenia 1 1% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Spain 4 5% 0.7 0.9 1.2 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 6.2 -0.2 -30% -4%
Sweden 5 7% 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.6 -0.1 -33% -5%
United Kingdom 1 1% 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.7 13.6 0.4 +29% +3%
Total 76 13% 7.2 7.5 7.8 8.4 8.5 8.2 7.8 7.9 7.9 71.2 0.7 +10% +1%
433/454
Energy industry - European Union (constant prices 2017)

Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
Support to energy savings 30 4% 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.2 1.4 1.9 2.4 2.0 17.4 0.3 +16% +2%
Support to R&D 261 31% 3.1 3.8 4.6 4.7 4.5 4.4 5.2 5.0 4.6 40.0 1.5 +48% +5%
Total 839 100% 90.9 86.6 93.4 97.0 100.9 96.6 98.8 105.1 102.1 871.3 11.2 +12% +1%

Support to 120
investment;
Support to 18% 100
R&D; 31%
Support to 80 Support to R&D
Euro billions
energy
demand; 5%to
Support
energy savings;
60
4%
20 Support to inv estment
S upport to 0
production;
42% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
Tax expenditures 129 15% 48.2 37.6 37.0 30.4 22.0 13.1 13.3 14.7 12.0 228.2 -36.2 -75% -16%
Direct transfer 189 23% 4.4 6.5 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.0 6.3 6.4 6.6 55.2 2.2 +50% +5%
Indirect transfer 256 31% 35.2 38.6 45.3 55.4 67.7 72.8 73.7 78.8 78.9 546.4 43.7 +124% +11%
RD&D budgets 261 31% 3.1 3.8 4.6 4.7 4.5 4.4 5.2 5.0 4.6 40.0 1.5 +48% +5%
Others 4 0% 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 1.6 0.0 -77% -17%
Total 839 100% 90.9 86.6 93.4 97.0 100.9 96.6 98.8 105.1 102.1 871.3 11.2 +12% +1%
Others; 0%
120.0
Tax
expenditures;
100.0
15% Others
Euro billions
80.0
RD&D budgets; RD&D budgets
31% Direct transfer; 60.0
23% Indirect transfer
40.0 Direct transfer
Indirect 20.0 Tax expendi tures
transfer; 31%
0.0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
All energies 93 11% 42.5 32.2 30.9 24.6 15.8 7.7 8.0 9.4 6.5 177.6 -36.0 -85% -21%
Fossil fuels 208 25% 17.8 18.0 18.3 18.3 19.7 16.9 16.3 16.5 16.0 157.8 -1.8 -10% -1%
Heating & cooling 15 2% 2.8 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.0 1.6 1.2 1.2 1.4 16.4 -1.4 -50% -8%
Nuclear 34 4% 2.8 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.3 4.2 32.3 1.5 +52% +5%
Electricity 55 7% 2.5 2.8 2.9 3.6 3.2 2.4 2.7 2.5 2.6 25.1 0.1 +6% +1%
RES 434 52% 22.5 28.5 35.9 45.2 56.6 64.2 66.5 71.2 71.3 462.0 48.8 +216% +15%
Total 839 100% 90.9 86.6 93.4 97.0 100.9 96.6 98.8 105.1 102.1 871.3 11.2 +12% +1%

energy/technology
120.0
A ll 100.0
energies; Electricity
11% 80.0
Euro billions
RES
60.0 All energies
F ossil fuels;
RES; 52% 25% 40.0 Nuclear
Heating & cooling
Heating & 20.0
cooling; 2% Fossil fuels
Nuclear; 4% 0.0
Electricity ; 7% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
Austria 27 3% 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.7 14.2 0.0 -1% -0%
Belgium 22 3% 1.7 1.6 1.9 2.1 2.4 2.4 1.9 2.0 1.9 18.0 0.2 +9% +1%
Bulgaria 7 1% 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 7.2 -0.2 -19% -3%
Croatia 8 1% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.2
Cyprus 7 1% 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.2 0.0 +7% +1%
Czech Republic 31 4% 2.0 1.6 1.9 2.1 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.0 17.7 -0.1 -3% -0%
Denmark 32 4% 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.5 11.0 0.6 +59% +6%
Estonia 33 4% 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.1 -0.1 -44% -7%
Finland 31 4% 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 7.8 -0.4 -35% -5%
France 39 5% 5.8 6.2 6.2 6.8 7.3 7.3 7.9 8.5 9.1 65.0 3.4 +58% +6%
Germany 51 6% 21.1 19.1 23.4 25.8 27.3 26.1 28.4 31.7 31.4 234.3 10.3 +49% +5%
Greece 30 4% 1.6 1.3 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.8 1.9 1.5 1.8 15.9 0.1 +8% +1%
Hungary 29 3% 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 8.3 -0.1 -9% -1%
Ireland 36 4% 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.1 10.5 0.1 +5% +1%
Italy 56 7% 15.5 13.9 13.5 15.0 16.1 16.0 16.7 16.5 15.4 138.5 -0.1 -0% -0%
Latvia 11 1% 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 2.2 0.1 +58% +6%
Lithuania 32 4% 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 3.5 0.3 +105% +9%
Luxembourg 24 3% 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.0 +12% +1%
Malta 10 1% 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 -97% -35%
Netherlands 39 5% 2.9 2.7 2.9 2.4 2.0 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.6 18.4 -1.3 -46% -7%
Poland 55 7% 4.4 4.5 4.8 4.6 4.2 2.9 3.3 2.7 2.2 33.5 -2.3 -51% -9%
Portugal 30 4% 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.8 1.5 1.5 12.6 0.4 +39% +4%
Romania 12 1% 2.2 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 11.2 -1.5 -69% -13%
Slovakia 25 3% 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 6.7 -0.1 -13% -2%
Slovenia 11 1% 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.7 -0.1 -28% -4%
Spain 50 6% 12.5 14.0 15.0 15.4 16.5 15.9 12.5 13.2 11.4 126.3 -1.1 -9% -1%
Sweden 36 4% 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 11.6 -0.6 -36% -5%
United Kingdom 51 6% 9.4 8.7 9.0 8.3 9.2 8.7 9.6 12.0 11.8 86.6 2.4 +25% +3%
Total 825 16% 90.9 86.6 93.4 97.0 100.9 96.6 97.7 103.9 100.9 867.8 10.0 +11% +1%
434/454
Manufacturing - European Union (constant prices 2017)

Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
Support to inv estment 7 8% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0
Support to energy demand 62 67% 17.6 17.4 17.5 15.7 16.4 16.3 15.7 15.9 16.2 148.7 -1.4 -8% -1%
Support to R&D 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 93 100% 17.8 17.6 17.8 16.1 16.9 16.9 16.8 16.6 17.0 153.4 -0.8 -4% -1%

production; R&D; 0% S upport to 20
17% investment;8%
15
Support to R&D
Euro billions
Support to
energy sav ings; Support to production
9% 10
5
Support to 0
energy
demand; 67% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
Direct transfer 22 24% 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.5 0.6 3.0 0.5 +752% +31%
RD&D budgets 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Others 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 93 100% 17.8 17.6 17.8 16.1 16.9 16.9 16.8 16.6 17.0 153.4 -0.8 -4% -1%
RD&D
Interventions
Indirect distribution by sub-types Financial support by sub-types (billion euros)
budgets; 0%
transf er; 8% Others; 0%
18.0
17.0
Others
Euro billions
16.0 RD&D budgets

Direct transfer;
24% Tax
Indirect transfer
expenditures; 15.0
69% Direct transfer
13.0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
All energies 16 17% 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.3 3.6 0.0 -10% -1%
Fossil fuels 42 45% 9.0 9.1 9.1 8.9 8.5 8.8 8.4 8.6 8.6 79.0 -0.5 -5% -1%
Heating & cooling 1 1% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Nuclear 1 1% 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 6.4 -0.4 -44% -7%
Electricity 25 27% 6.9 6.7 6.7 5.2 6.0 5.9 6.0 5.9 6.4 55.6 -0.5 -7% -1%
RES 8 9% 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.2 8.7 0.6 +89% +8%
Total 93 100% 17.8 17.6 17.8 16.1 16.9 16.9 16.8 16.6 17.0 153.4 -0.8 -4% -1%

energy/technology
20.0
RES; 9%
15.0 Electricity
A ll energies;
Euro billions
17% RES
10.0 All energies
Electricity ; 27%
Fossil f uels; Nuclear
45%
5.0 Heating & cooling
Nuclear; 1% Fossil fuels
Heating & 0.0
cooling; 1%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
Austria 4 4% 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 3.7 -0.2 -39% -6%
Belgium 6 6% 1.9 1.8 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.1 15.7 -0.8 -41% -6%
Bulgaria 3 3% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 +1140% +37%
Croatia 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cyprus 1 1% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -100% -100%
Czech Republic 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Denmark 3 3% 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 -18% -2%
Estonia 2 2% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 +15% +2%
Finland 3 3% 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 4.7 0.5 +174% +13%
France 7 8% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.0 1.2 1.0
Germany 19 20% 10.1 10.0 10.0 8.2 9.4 8.9 9.3 8.8 8.7 83.4 -1.5 -14% -2%
Greece 2 2% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Hungary 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ireland 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Italy 6 6% 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 3.7 -0.1 -23% -3%
Latvia 5 5% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0
Lithuania 6 6% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 +791% +31%
Luxembourg 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Malta 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Netherlands 4 4% 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.1 +78% +7%
Poland 1 1% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Portugal 2 2% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.2 +1722% +44%
Romania 1 1% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0
Slovakia 2 2% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 +63382% +124%
Slovenia 1 1% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Spain 3 3% 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 4.6 0.2 +71% +7%
Sweden 5 5% 2.1 1.9 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.4 14.8 -0.7 -35% -5%
United Kingdom 7 8% 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.1 1.8 2.0 1.8 2.1 2.3 18.3 0.4 +23% +3%
Total 93 16% 17.8 17.6 17.8 16.1 16.9 16.9 16.8 16.6 17.0 153.4 -0.8 -4% -1%
435/454
Households - European Union (constant prices 2017)

Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
Support to inv estment 29 17% 2.6 3.5 3.6 3.1 2.6 1.6 1.1 1.0 1.9 21.1 -0.7 -26% -4%
Support to R&D 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 167 100% 18.9 20.4 23.9 23.1 22.6 23.1 23.5 23.4 23.6 202.5 4.7 +25% +3%

Support
Support
to to
production;
R&D;3%0% Support to 30
investment;
17% 25
S upport to
energy savings;
20 Support to R&D
Euro billions
31%
15
Support to 0
energy
demand; 49% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
Direct transfer 99 59% 6.3 6.6 6.8 5.4 5.3 5.6 5.9 5.8 5.9 53.6 -0.3 -5% -1%
RD&D budgets 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Others 1 1% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.0 3.6 0.0
Total 167 100% 18.9 20.4 23.9 23.1 22.6 23.1 23.5 23.4 23.6 202.5 4.7 +25% +3%
Interventions distribution
RD&D budgets; by sub-types Financial support by sub-types (billion euros)
Others; 1%
Indirect 0%
transf er;
30.0
10%
25.0
Tax Others
Euro billions
expenditures; 20.0
31% RD&D budgets
15.0
Direct transfer; Indirect transfer
0.0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
All energies 58 35% 3.9 5.0 4.9 4.0 3.5 4.2 3.9 4.0 3.7 37.0 -0.2 -4% -1%
Fossil fuels 39 23% 7.8 7.5 9.6 8.9 9.0 8.8 8.3 8.0 8.5 76.2 0.7 +9% +1%
Heating & cooling 13 8% 0.4 0.7 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.7 1.7 1.8 12.2 1.4 +341% +20%
Nuclear 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Electricity 33 20% 6.7 7.1 7.7 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.5 8.2 8.1 71.0 1.4 +21% +2%
RES 24 14% 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.2 1.5 1.5 6.0 1.4 +1076% +36%
Total 167 100% 18.9 20.4 23.9 23.1 22.6 23.1 23.5 23.4 23.6 202.5 4.7 +25% +3%

energy/technology
30.0
25.0
RES ; 14% Electricity
20.0
Euro billions
RES
All energies; 15.0 All energies
Electricity; 20%
35% Nuclear
10.0
Heating & cooling
Nuclear; 0% Fossil f uels; 5.0
Fossil fuels
23%
Heating & 0.0
cooling; 8%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
Austria 2 1% 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 -41% -6%
Belgium 18 11% 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.4 1.8 1.5 0.9 0.8 1.2 10.2 0.6 +88% +8%
Bulgaria 6 4% 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.2 +695% +30%
Croatia 2 1% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 +22301% +97%
Cyprus 7 4% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Czech Republic 1 1% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Denmark 6 4% 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 4.8 0.6
Estonia 6 4% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 -87% -23%
Finland 2 1% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 -93% -28%
France 10 6% 3.4 4.3 3.9 3.3 2.5 2.3 3.2 3.8 4.5 31.3 1.1 +32% +4%
Germany 3 2% 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.1 1.2 1.3 7.6 1.0 +375% +22%
Greece 6 4% 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.9 8.4 0.2 +36% +4%
Hungary 1 1% 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 -0.3 -100% -100%
Ireland 14 8% 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 6.4 0.1 +11% +1%
Italy 4 2% 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.7 20.9 0.6 +28% +3%
Latvia 8 5% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 -18% -2%
Lithuania 9 5% 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.2 +16329% +89%
Luxembourg 2 1% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 -10% -1%
Malta 8 5% 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.0 +36% +4%
Netherlands 7 4% 1.5 1.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.6 20.9 1.1 +71% +7%
Poland 8 5% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1
Portugal 5 3% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0
Romania 3 2% 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 -0.3 -91% -26%
Slovakia 4 2% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 +16111% +89%
Slovenia 4 2% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 +77% +7%
Spain 6 4% 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 4.1 0.5 +202% +15%
Sweden 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
United Kingdom 15 9% 8.5 8.9 10.2 9.4 9.2 9.3 9.2 8.6 7.5 80.9 -1.0 -12% -2%
Total 167 13% 18.9 20.4 23.9 23.1 22.6 23.1 23.5 23.4 23.6 202.5 4.7 +25% +3%
436/454
Transports - European Union (constant prices 2017)

Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
Support to inv estment 2 1% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Support to production 2 1% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Support to R&D 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 162 100% 11.8 11.0 10.9 10.8 13.3 12.1 12.0 12.5 13.4 107.7 1.6 +13% +2%
Interventions
S upport todistribution by types Financial support by types (billion euros)
energy Support
Support
savings; toto
Support
production;
2% R&D; 0%1% to 16
inv estment; 1%
14
12
Support to R&D
Euro billions
10
8
6
4
2
Support to 0
energy
demand;95% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
Direct transfer 7 4% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 +83% +8%
RD&D budgets 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Others 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 162 100% 11.8 11.0 10.9 10.8 13.3 12.1 12.0 12.5 13.4 107.7 1.6 +13% +2%
Indirect
RD&D
Direct by sub-types transf er; Financial support by sub-types (billion euros)
budgets;
transfer;
Others;
0%4%0% 1%
16.0
14.0
12.0 Others
Euro billions
10.0
RD&D budgets
8.0
Indirect transfer
6.0
Direct transfer
Tax 4.0
expenditures; Tax expendi tures
95% 2.0
0.0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
All energies 5 3% 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.0 -0% -0%
Fossil fuels 138 85% 10.1 9.3 9.6 9.4 12.0 10.8 10.8 11.5 12.0 95.5 1.9 +19% +2%
Heating & cooling 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Nuclear 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Electricity 11 7% 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 3.2 0.3 +101% +9%
RES 8 5% 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.7 8.1 -0.6 -48% -8%
Total 162 100% 11.8 11.0 10.9 10.8 13.3 12.1 12.0 12.5 13.4 107.7 1.6 +13% +2%
Interventions distribution by A ll energies; Financial support by energy/technology (billion euros)

3%
energy/technology
RES;
5% 16.0
Electricity ; 7%
Nuclear; 0% 14.0
12.0 Electricity
Euro billions
Heating & 10.0 RES

cooling; 0%
8.0 All energies
Fossil f uels; 6.0 Nuclear
85%
2.0 Fossil fuels
0.0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
Austria 8 5% 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 7.1 0.1 +9% +1%
Belgium 5 3% 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 3.2 0.3 +432% +23%
Bulgaria 5 3% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 +8% +1%
Croatia 5 3% 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.0 -9% -1%
Cyprus 4 2% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Czech Republic 3 2% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 -1% -0%
Denmark 5 3% 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.7 0.0 -11% -1%
Estonia 4 2% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 +3% +0%
Finland 4 2% 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.3 0.0 -2% -0%
France 17 10% 2.4 2.0 1.7 1.8 2.7 2.4 2.4 2.6 3.0 20.9 0.6 +27% +3%
Germany 7 4% 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 10.1 -0.2 -15% -2%
Greece 5 3% 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.9 -0.1 -23% -3%
Hungary 4 2% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 -15% -2%
Ireland 7 4% 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.0 0.1 +223% +16%
Italy 14 9% 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.7 3.0 2.9 3.0 3.1 22.4 1.0 +48% +5%
Latvia 4 2% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 +173% +13%
Lithuania 5 3% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -15% -2%
Luxembourg 4 2% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -36% -5%
Malta 3 2% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 +268% +18%
Netherlands 3 2% 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.8 0.0 +16% +2%
Poland 4 2% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 +479% +25%
Portugal 6 4% 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.0 +11% +1%
Romania 3 2% 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 -35% -5%
Slovakia 4 2% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Slovenia 4 2% 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0
Spain 6 4% 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 11.9 -0.5 -29% -4%
Sweden 11 7% 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 1.0 5.7 0.4 +68% +7%
United Kingdom 8 5% 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 15.4 -0.3 -16% -2%
Total 162 15% 11.8 11.0 10.9 10.8 13.3 12.1 12.0 12.5 13.4 107.7 1.6 +13% +2%
437/454
Public - European Union (constant prices 2017)

Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
Support to energy demand 8 19% 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.7 0.0 -16% -2%
Support to R&D 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 42 100% 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 4.0 0.1 +64% +6%

Support to
S upport to 1
production;
R&D; 0% 0%
investment;
14% 1
1 Support to R&D
Euro billions
Support to 0 Support to production
energy
demand; 19% 0 Support to energy savings
Support to
energy savings; 0 Support to inv estment
67%
0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
Tax expenditures 9 21% 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 2.0 0.0 -16% -2%
Direct transfer 29 69% 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.4 0.1 +706% +30%
RD&D budgets 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Others 3 7% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -72% -15%
Total 42 100% 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 4.0 0.1 +64% +6%
RD&D Others; 7%
budgets; 0% Indirect 0.7
transfer;2%
0.6
Tax
ex penditures; 0.5 Others
Euro billions
21%
0.4 RD&D budgets
0.3 Indirect transfer
Direct transfer; 0.2 Direct transfer
69%
0.0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
All energies 22 52% 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 2.1 0.2 +1096% +36%
Fossil fuels 8 19% 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.0 -14% -2%
Heating & cooling 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Nuclear 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Electricity 8 19% 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.0 -9% -1%
RES 4 10% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 +9937% +78%
Total 42 100% 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 4.0 0.1 +64% +6%

energy/technology
0.7
RES ; 0.6
10% Electricity
0.5
Euro billions
RES
0.4
Electricity ; 19%
All energies
All energies;
0.3
Nuclear; 0% Nuclear
52%
Heating &
F ossil fuels;
cooling; 0%
19% 0.1 Fossil fuels
0.0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
Austria 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Belgium 2 5% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 +105% +9%
Bulgaria 3 7% 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.1
Croatia 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cyprus 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Czech Republic 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Denmark 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Estonia 1 2% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Finland 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
France 4 10% 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 -0.1 -100% -100%
Germany 1 2% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Greece 1 2% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 +37% +4%
Hungary 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ireland 6 14% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 +4598% +62%
Italy 1 2% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0
Latvia 2 5% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Lithuania 4 10% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 -50% -8%
Luxembourg 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Malta 3 7% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Netherlands 3 7% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 +122% +10%
Poland 7 17% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0
Portugal 1 2% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Romania 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Slovakia 1 2% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Slovenia 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Spain 1 2% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 -100% -100%
Sweden 1 2% 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.0 -18% -2%
United Kingdom 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 42 5% 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 4.0 0.1 +64% +6%
438/454
Non-households - European Union (constant prices 2017)

Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
Support to R&D 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 32 100% 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 2.7 0.2 +117% +10%

S upport to Support
Support
to to
1
energy savings;production;
R&D;3%
0%
16%
0
Support to R&D
Euro billions
Support to 0 Support to production
inv estment;
44% Support to energy savings
0
Support to
energy 0
demand; 38%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
Direct transfer 17 53% 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 -21% -3%
RD&D budgets 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Others 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 32 100% 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 2.7 0.2 +117% +10%
Indirect RD&D
transfer;
budgets; 0%
by sub-types Financial support by sub-types (billion euros)
6% Others; 0%
0.5
0.4
Others
Euro billions
Tax
ex penditures; 0.3 RD&D budgets
41%
Direct transf er; Indirect transfer
53%
0.2
Direct transfer
0.0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
All energies 11 34% 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.0 +183% +14%
Fossil fuels 9 28% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.1 +1202% +38%
Heating & cooling 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Nuclear 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Electricity 2 6% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
RES 10 31% 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.1 0.0 +16% +2%
Total 32 100% 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 2.7 0.2 +117% +10%

energy/technology
0.5
0.4 Electricity
Euro billions
RES
RES; 31% 0.3
34% 0.2 Nuclear
Heating & cooling
Electricity ; 6%
0.1
F ossil fuels; Fossil fuels
Nuclear; 0% 28%
Heating & 0.0
cooling; 0% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
Austria 1 3% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Belgium 5 16% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 +231% +16%
Bulgaria 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Croatia 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cyprus 3 9% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Czech Republic 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Denmark 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Estonia 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Finland 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
France 4 13% 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.1 +979% +35%
Germany 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Greece 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hungary 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ireland 2 6% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -65% -12%
Italy 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Latvia 4 13% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Lithuania 4 13% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 +2438% +50%
Luxembourg 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Malta 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Netherlands 1 3% 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.1 0.0 +21% +2%
Poland 3 9% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Portugal 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Romania 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Slovakia 2 6% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Slovenia 3 9% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 -71% -14%
Spain 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sweden 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
United Kingdom 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 32 0% 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 2.7 0.2 +117% +10%
439/454
Cross sectors - European Union (constant prices 2017)

Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
Support to R&D 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 81 100% 2.7 3.0 3.6 3.8 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.9 3.2 31.2 0.5 +18% +2%

Support to
production;
R&D; 0% 0% Support to 5
investment; 4
20%
4
3 Support to R&D
Euro billions
S upport to
energy savings; 3 Support to production
44%
1
Support to 1
energy 0
demand; 36%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
Direct transfer 43 53% 0.0 0.3 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.4 4.2 0.4 +870% +33%
RD&D budgets 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Others 6 7% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 +9% +1%
Total 81 100% 2.7 3.0 3.6 3.8 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.9 3.2 31.2 0.5 +18% +2%
Indirect Others;7%
RD&D 4.5
transfer; 2%
budgets; 0% 4.0
3.5
Others
Euro billions
Tax 3.0
expenditures; 2.5 RD&D budgets
37%
Direct transfer; 2.0 Indirect transfer
1.0
Tax expendi tures
0.5
0.0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
All energies 31 38% 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.4 5.6 0.2 +71% +7%
Fossil fuels 23 28% 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.6 24.1 0.1 +6% +1%
Heating & cooling 3 4% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Nuclear 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Electricity 6 7% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 +21% +2%
RES 18 22% 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 1.3 0.2 +1094% +36%
Total 81 100% 2.7 3.0 3.6 3.8 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.9 3.2 31.2 0.5 +18% +2%

energy/technology
4.5
4.0
3.5 Electricity
RES; 22% 3.0
Euro billions
RES
2.5
2.0
Electricity; 7% 38% Nuclear
1.5
Nuclear; 0%
Heating &
Fossil f uels; 0.5 Fossil fuels
cooling;4%
28%
0.0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008/16 (%)
Austria 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Belgium 7 9% 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 +20% +2%
Bulgaria 3 4% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 +99% +9%
Croatia 5 6% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 +179% +14%
Cyprus 1 1% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Czech Republic 5 6% 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 2.0 0.1 +5139% +64%
Denmark 2 2% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Estonia 1 1% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -100% -100%
Finland 3 4% 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 2.3 -0.1 -32% -5%
France 3 4% 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 4.1 0.2 +53% +5%
Germany 6 7% 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.1 0.1 +64% +6%
Greece 1 1% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -100% -100%
Hungary 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ireland 2 2% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 +506% +25%
Italy 6 7% 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 2.3 0.2 +273% +18%
Latvia 2 2% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lithuania 1 1% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Luxembourg 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Malta 5 6% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Netherlands 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Poland 2 2% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 -100% -100%
Portugal 9 11% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 +3% +0%
Romania 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Slovakia 6 7% 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.3 0.1 +113% +10%
Slovenia 1 1% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Spain 3 4% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0
Sweden 2 2% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 +44% +5%
United Kingdom 5 6% 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.9 1.8 1.6 15.0 -0.1 -7% -1%
Total 81 12% 2.7 3.0 3.6 3.8 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.9 3.2 31.2 0.5 +18% +2%
440/454
Switzerland
Support by types
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Support to R&D 14 36% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 39 100% 0,3 0 0,34 0,55 0,54 1,06 1,06 1,21 1,37 1,42 7,87 +369% +21%

Support to
investment; 3% 2
1
Support to
R&D; 36% 1
Support to R&D
Euro billions
Support to
1
demand; 41% 1
1
0
Support to
0
production ; 5% Support to 0
energy s avings;
15% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Support by category
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Direct transfer 7 18% 0,0 9 0,09 0,26 0,23 0,25 0,27 0,30 0,33 0,39 2,21 +344% +20%
RD&D budgets 14 36% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Others 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 39 100% 0,3 0 0,34 0,55 0,54 1,06 1,06 1,21 1,37 1,42 7,87 +369% +21%

1,6
1,4
1,2 Others
Euro billions
Tax 1,0
RD&D budgets; expenditures; RD&D budgets
36% 41% 0,8
Indirect transfer
0,6
Direct transfer
0,4
Indirect transfer; 0,2
transfer; 5% 18%
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
All energies 6 15% 0,0 9 0,09 0,26 0,23 0,25 0,27 0,30 0,33 0,39 2,21 +344% +20%
Fossil fuels 16 41% 0,2 1 0,21 0,23 0,28 0,72 0,68 0,74 0,81 0,66 4,54 +207% +15%
Heating & cooling 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Nuclear 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Electricity 0 0% 0,0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
RES 3 8% 0,0 0 0,04 0,06 0,03 0,08 0,12 0,17 0,23 0,37 1,11
Total 25 64% 0,3 0 0,34 0,55 0,54 1,06 1,06 1,21 1,37 1,42 7,87 +369% +21%

1,4
RES; 8% Electricity
1,2
Euro billions
1,0 RES
15%
41% 0,4 Heating & cooling
0,2 Fossil fuels
0,0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Support by sector
Distribution 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2 014 2015 2016 2008/16 (% )
Cross sector 8 21% 0,0 3 0,05 0,07 0,11 0,54 0,58 0,64 0,70 0,55 3,28 +1584% +42%
Agriculture 4 10% 0,0 6 0,06 0,06 0,06 0,06 0,06 0,06 0,06 0,06 0,55 +4% +0%
Energy industry 17 44% 0,0 0 0,04 0,06 0,03 0,08 0,12 0,17 0,23 0,37 1,11
Manufacturing 3 8% 0,0 5 0,03 0,02 0,03 0,03 0,01 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,21 -81% -19%
Households 2 5% 0,0 5 0,05 0,22 0,19 0,21 0,19 0,22 0,25 0,32 1,72 +503% +25%
Transports 3 8% 0,0 8 0,08 0,09 0,09 0,10 0,09 0,08 0,09 0,09 0,79 +14% +2%
Public 1 3% 0,0 1 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,06 -38% -6%
Non-households 1 3% 0,0 2 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,15 -35% -5%
Total 39 100% 0,3 0 0,34 0,55 0,54 1,06 1,06 1,21 1,37 1,42 7,87 +369% +21%

Public; 3% Non- 1,6
households; 3%
1,4 Non-households
Transports; 8%
1,2 Public
Households; 5%
Euro billions
Cros s sector; 1,0 Transports

Manufacturing; 21% Households
0,8
8%
Agricu lture; 0,6 Manufactu ring
10%
0,4 Energy industry
Energy 0,2 Agriculture
industry; 44%
0,0 Cross sector
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
441/454
Annex L: T4 - Results from the econometric

analysis
Impact of renewables on wholesale electricity prices
ℎ _ _ ℎ _ ℎ ℎ _
!
t=1,2,….,T
Where,
• Wholesale_Price = the wholesale price of electricity (€/MWh)
• RES_Share = the share of intermittent renewables in total installed capacity (%)
• Nuc_Share= the share of nuclear in total installed capacity (%)
• Electricity Demand = electricity demand (MWh)
• Other_Factors = other control variables, including heating degree days and cooling degree days
Table H.0-1 Regression results showing the estimated impact of renewables on the wholesale electricity price
Estimated coefficient Z statistic

Renewable share -0.55** -19.65
Nuclear Share -0.32** -7.38
Electricity Demand 0.00** 3.00
Heating Degree Days 0.01** 3.62
Cooling Degree Days 0.03* 2.03
Imports 0.00* 2.29
*indicates significant at 5% level; ** indicates significant at 1% level
Impact of loans and grants on fuel demand
" # $ $" # % # "&& $ ' #
( "&& $ ' % ' # ) "&& $ ' % #

ℎ _ # !#
t=1,2,….,T (years)
i=1,2,….,N (countries)
Where,
• Fuel demand = total gas or electricity demand by households or industry (GWh)
• Price of fuel= index of average retail prices of gas or electricity for households or industry
• Economic activity = Gross output (for industry equations); real income (for household equations)
• Support for energy demand= value of cumulative energy demand loans and grants since 2008
(€millions)
• Support for energy savings= value of cumulative energy savings loans and grants since 2008
(€millions)
• Support for energy investment= value of cumulative energy investment loans and grants since
2008 (€millions)
• Other_Factors = other exogenous variables, such temperature indicators
442/454
Table H-0-2 Fixed effects regression results showing the estimated impact of household and commercial grants
and loans on electricity demand
Estimated Standard error P value

coefficient
Support for investment 26.06 18.00 0.149
Support for energy demand 17.67 12.45 0.157
Support for energy savings -5.42 1.34 0.000
Fuel Price -0.04 1.15 0.969
Activity indicator -0.01 0.00 0.148
Heating Degree Days 3.23 0.87 0.000
Cooling Degree Days 7.13 5.49 0.196
constant 53903.84 4885.54 0.000
Table H-0-3 Fixed effects regression results showing the estimated impact of industry electricity grants and
loans on electricity demand

coefficient
Support for investment -3.92 5.11 0.444
Support for energy demand -18.40 19.24 0.340
Fuel Price -9.07 1.67 0.000
Activity indicator 0.11 0.01 0.000
constant 27212.76 2022.95 0.000
Table H-0-4 Fixed effects regression results showing the estimated impact of household and commercial grants
and loans on household gas demand

coefficient
Support for investment 7.04 50.53 0.889
Support for energy demand 63.14 10.33 0.000
Fuel Price -7.96 6.07 0.192
Activity indicator -0.04 0.01 0.001
Heating Degree Days 13.68 2.44 0.000
Cooling Degree Days 6.56 15.30 0.669
constant 59316.33 14366.09 0.000
Table H -0-5 Fixed effects regression results showing the estimated impact of industry electricity grants and
loans on industry gas demand

coefficient
Support for investment -30.19 11.79 0.011
Support for energy demand -16.40 2.60 -
Support for energy savings 2.67 4.60 0.000
Fuel Price 0.11 0.01 0.563
Activity indicator 15132.70 2729.51 0.000
constant -30.19 11.79 0.000
443/454
Annex M: T4 - Financial supports to the

nuclear industry
Financial support measure to nuclear industry have been collected by MS experts and then gathered into
the database. For consistency reasons, R&D supports have been taken from the dedicated IEA/OECD
database 640.
Financial supports for nuclear R&D

Nuclear industry is directly supported at both European and national levels through subsidies of nuclear
R&D Programmes.
At the EU level, the Framework Programme 7 (FP7) running from 2007 to 2013 allocated more than
€2.3 billion to nuclear research activities over this period 641. The EU currently plans to spend €1.6 billion
for the nuclear research program Euratom under the Horizon 2020 program over 2014- 2018 642. Table 1
provides details about the amounts invested in R&D at the national level.
Table 0-1: Nuclear R&D financial supports (million euros, 2017 prices) (Source IEA)
MS 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Austria 4.5 3.0 3.1 2.6 2.5 2.5 1.5 1.3 1.5
Belgium 0.0 0.0 56.1 69.7 81.5 103.6 67.0 76.4 88.2
Czech Rep. 13.2 12.8 12.4 14.9 18.6 20.7 20.1 18.4 6.2
Denmark 0.0 0.0 2.9 1.3 5.3 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.7
Estonia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2
Finland 11.2 13.9 15.6 19.2 15.5 15.0 15.1 21.6 14.8
France 477 456 419 474 543 514 482 455 407
Germany 157 213 203 221 208 217 215 222 211
Hungary 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.7
Ireland 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Italy 75.0 85.0 81.1 76.1 95.3 96.5 78.4 0.0 0.0
Netherlands 16.8 12.4 17.9 13.6 10.4 8.1 8.1 7.1 6.3
Poland 1.2 2.4 4.7 5.5 6.6 6.3 3.2 1.1 0.3
Portugal 1.0 2.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Slovakia 5.5 5.6 5.6 4.9 6.0 3.6 2.2 0.3 0.9
Spain 24.2 26.8 0.0 1.0 25.3 22.0 1.9 2.6 9.6
Sweden 6.1 7.1 6.8 3.6 3.4 2.8 2.8 0.6 1.2
UK 48 39 82 51 77 68 68 171 150
EU28 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 128 143
Total 842 880 910 960 1 099 1 083 1 101 1 108 1 044
Source: IEA
640 IEA Energy Technology RD&D Budget Database, http://www.iea.org/statistics/rdd/

641 CE, 2015, Ex-post Evaluation of indirect actions of the Euratom FP7 and Euratom 2012-2013
FP, https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/fp7-ex-
post_evaluation/ki0115936enn.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none.
642 EC, 2017, Interim evaluation of the Euratom Research and Training Programme 2014-2018,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52017SC0427
444/454
Non-R&D financial support measures to nuclear industry

Table 0-2 provides details about non-R&D measures that have been reported by MS experts.
Table 0-2: Non-R&D financial support measures for nuclear industry (million euros, 2017 prices)
MS Name of policy 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
CZ Management of all the radioactive waste repositories 4.0 3.9 4.7 4.5 4.3 5.3 6.3 9.6 12.1
HU Support to NPP decommissioning and waste disposal 84.4 82.2 82.1 81.3 66.8 110.4 100.2 86.7 80.8
IT Nuclear decommissioning incentive 264.9 277.7 410.0 255.0 151.0 170.0 323.0 622.0 563.0
LT Ignalina NPP decommissioning 55.5 23.7 8.5 1.9 48.7 53.3 95.9 103.4 107.7
SK EU nuclear decommissioning assistance programme 60.4 60.4 60.4 60.4 60.4 60.4 30.3 30.9 32.8
Payment to the nuclear fund from electricity tariffs 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.4 70.7 58.4 70.2 67.3 65.2
Subsidy to the national nuclear fund 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3
SI Financial fund for decommissioning of the Krško NPP 9.0 8.2 8.0 8.9 7.9 7.6 9.1 8.1 8.1
UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority 643 1,184 1,365 1,385 1,389 1,934 1,981 2,143 2,443 2,235
Total Decommissioning and waste disposal 1,663 1,821 1,959 1,852 2,344 2,447 2,778 3,372 3,105
SE Compensation for the closure of Barsebäck NPP 25.2 19.6 19.5 20.7 21.7 21.3 20.1 15.0 10.5
Total Stranded assets 25.2 19.6 19.5 20.7 21.7 21.3 20.1 15.0 10.5
FR Expenditure financed by public funds for Nuclear R&D, 64.0 64.0 64.0 64.0 64.0 153.0 153.0 153.0 153.0
safety and security purposes
RO Corporate tax exemption to finance investment in 0.0 4.1 1.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cernavoda NPP2
SE Support for nuclear safety 6.4 6.5 7.9 6.4 7.5 7.4 5.3 0.7 11.1
Total Others 70.4 74.6 73.8 71.0 71.5 160.4 158.3 153.7 164.1
Total 1,758 1,916 2,052 1,944 2,438 2,628 2,957 3,540 3,279
Source: own calculations
643
Amounts inventoried for the United Kingdom are those linked to civil nuclear industry only, i.e. amounts related to military purpose have been excluded from the inventory.
445/454
Nuclear funds for waste management and plant decommissioning

Within the EU, there are currently 129 operational nuclear reactors with an average age of 30 years and
89 units which were shut down. In the long-term, the decommissioning of these reactors as well as the
management of nuclear wastes will require substantial financing: in its 2016 Nuclear Illustrative
Programme (PINC), the EC estimates that, by 2050, about €123 billion will be necessary for nuclear
decommissioning and €130 billion for managing radioactive waste and spent fuel 644. This is nearly 50%
higher than the costs estimated in the previous PINC in 2008. More generally, the estimated costs of
decommissioning a single-unit nuclear power plant in Europe range between €0.5 and 1.6 billion (NEA,
2016)645.
The following table summarises the different origins of the nuclear decommissioning funds in Europe.
According to our data collection, we can distinguish 3 types of financing:
- companies (operators/owners): operating entities or owners are often required to build up
reserves in their balance sheets to cover decommissioning and waste management costs;
- public funds: funding comes either from the EU level or from national States and can be
internal or external from the state budget;
- energy prices: costs are paid by final customers through levies on energy prices.
At the European level, dedicated funds have been set through the implementation of nuclear
decommissioning assistance programmes (NDAP) to specifically support Bulgaria, Lithuania, and Slovakia
to close and dismantle their early Soviet-designed reactors as required to access to the European Union.
The programmes are based on a co-financing principle, i.e. EU funds complement national
contributions. In total, these three countries should therefore benefit from an estimated
€3.8 billion from the EU budget over 1999-2020 646, and from €4.8 billion over 2020-2027 647. Currently,
the EC estimates that about €1.6 billion have already been spent 648.
In most of the Member States, operators are required to set fund to cover future decommissioning costs
either with reserves in their balance sheets, or by contributing to a fund managed by an external entity.
There are two main exceptions; in Italy, funds for decommissioning costs arise from a levy on the sales
of electricity held by the Italian Regulatory Authority for Electricity and Gas. In the United Kingdom,
decommissioning costs of old nuclear plants under the supervision of the Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority (NDA) are covered by government funds. Decommissioning costs for the newer reactors are
covered by the Nuclear Liabilities Fund (NLF), which is based on contributions from nuclear power plant
operators.
644
CE, COM(2016) 177 final - Communication from the Commission, Nuclear Illustrative Programme, presented under
Article 40 of the Euratom Treaty for the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee,
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/1-2016-177-EN-F1-1.PDF
645
NEA, 2016, Financing the Decommissioning of Nuclear facilities, https://www.oecd-
nea.org/rwm/pubs/2016/7326-fin-decom-nf.pdf
646
European Parliamentary Research Service Blog, https://epthinktank.eu/2017/04/20/how-the-eu-budget-is-spent-
nuclear-decommissioning-assistance/
647
http://enrsi.rtvs.sk/articles/news/167082/55-million-euros-for-nuclear-plant
648
EC, COM(2018) 468 final, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the
evaluation and implementation of the EU nuclear decommissioning assistance programmes in Bulgaria, Slovakia and
Lithuania, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0468&from=EN
446/454
Table 3 provides a detailed description of the funding sources for decommissioning and waste disposal in
different Member States. In line with the 2011/70/EURATOM Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste
Directive, waste disposal and decommissioning costs have to be paid by entities they arise from
(“polluter pays principle”), i.e. nuclear operators. The corresponding amounts are either put aside
internally by nuclear plant operators or paid on a public fund managed by the States or a state-owned
entity.
However, it is sometimes not clear how some Member States have transposed the Euratom Directive into
their national programmes. This is for example the case for Austria, Croatia and Italy 649.
“The polluter pays principle”
This principle is enshrined in Euratom Secondary Legislation - notably in the Radioactive Waste
Directive650 - which requires Member States to set up national financing schemes taking into account
that the costs for the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste shall be borne by those who
generated those materials:
“The ultimate responsibility of Member States for the safety of spent fuel and radioactive waste
management is a fundamental principle reaffirmed by the Joint Convention. That principle of
national responsibility, as well as the principle of prime responsibility of the licence holder for the
safety of spent fuel and radioactive waste management under the supervision of its competent
regulatory authority, should be enhanced and the role and independence of the competent
regulatory authority should be reinforced by this Directive.”
“Member States should establish national programmes to ensure the transposition of political
decisions into clear provisions for the timely implementation of all steps of spent fuel and
radioactive waste management from generation to disposal.”
Current infringement for Austria, Croatia and Italy
At the time of writing, three countries have been referred by the EC in May 20189 for failure to notify
their final national programmes for the management of the spent fuel and radioactive waste. By the
time being, the three Member States had only notified draft versions of their programmes. The
current existing funding schemes for waste disposal and decommissioning are described in the Table
below.
649 These three countries have been referred by the EC in May 2018 for failure to notify their final
national programmes for the management of the spent fuel and radioactive waste.
650 Council Directive 2011/70/EURATOM, available under: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011L0070&from=FR
447/454
Table 0-3: Origin of the financing of nuclear decommissioning/waste management funds.
Funding
Countries Comments
sources
As a nuclear-free country, Austria has only three research reactors,

two of them being already shut down. The Vienna University of
Companies Technology has to provide the financial provisions for the future
through decommissioning of its reactor; however, the reactor being state-
National owned, final decommissioning costs will be carried by the State.
Austria
public fund
and National Since 2003, the contributions of waste producers go into a special
funds separated fund which is administered by national authorities and is
not part of the state budget. This fund is exclusively dedicated for
financing the future final waste disposal in an appropriate repository.
There are dedicated segregated funds for decommissioning and spent

fuel: provisions are made on a fund managed by SYNATOM (100%
Belgium Companies daughter company of Electrabel-ENGIE) and are based on quarterly
payments by the power plants owners (Engie Electrabel and EDF
Luminous) pro rata of their ownership share.
The "Radioactive Waste Fund" and the "Nuclear Installations

Decommissioning Fund" are the two nuclear funds under the "Safe Use
of Nuclear Energy Act" adopted in 2002. The funds are independent
from the nuclear industry and managed by the government. The main
contribution to the two funds comes from an electricity price levy
Final
specified by the Bulgarian Council of Ministers. The Kozloduy nuclear
Bulgaria consumer and
plant pays 3% of the price of its power into the waste management
EU funds
fund and a further 7.5% into the decommissioning fund.
The European Union provided more than 95% of the contributions to
the International Kozloduy Decommissioning Support Fund (KIDSF) to
finance decommissioning activities of Kozloduy 1-4 as well as support
energy projects in the country.
The Fund for Financing Decommissioning and Management of

Companies
Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel of the Krško NPP (jointly
through
Croatia owned with Slovenia) was established in 2007. Contributions to the
National
Fund should be paid every three months until the Krško NPP has
public fund
ceased operation.
Radioactive Waste Repository Authority (RWRA) is funded through

levies imposed on the producers of radioactive waste (CEZ and UJV
Rez). The Ministry of Industry and Trade provides funds available to
RWRA through the so-called Nuclear Account, which is included
among the accounts of State financial assets and liabilities; the
amounts on the Nuclear Account are paid by contributions from
Companies
radioactive waste generators. Regarding decommissioning, under the
Czech through
Atomic Energy Act 2002, CEZ as nuclear plant operator is required to
Republic National
put aside funds for waste disposal, lodging these with the Czech
public fund
National Bank. The rate is CZK 0.05 / kWh (€0.002/kWh). Nuclear
plant operators with decommissioning cost estimates exceeding
300.000 CZK are compelled to make annual payments kept on a
blocked account. The management of blocked accounts stands by the
operator, these funds may however only be used for
decommissioning, and any drawing must be approved by RAWRA.
448
Funding
Countries Comments
sources
At the end of 2017, almost € 3 billion had been accumulated in the

Companies Finnish State Nuclear Waste Management Fund VYR from the utilities,
through which account for about 10% of nuclear electricity production costs.
Finland
National The charges are set annually by the government according to the
public fund assessed liabilities for each company, and also cover
decommissioning.
France does not have a dedicated funding agency. There are

dedicated segregated funds for decommissioning by the operator,
(EDF, CEA). EDF puts aside a provision which amount is related to the
total estimated cost, the actualisation cost and the expected lifetime
of the nuclear plants for decommissioning and waste disposal.
Provisions for dismantling and decontamination have to be fully
France Companies
collected already with the start of operations since the new
legislation of June 2006.
The operator, EDF, is responsible for any underperformance of its

fund and is therefore required to implement corrective measures
under the supervision of the administrative authority.
Up until 2017, the four operators of nuclear reactors in Germany

(E.ON, EnBW, RWE, Vattenfall) managed their own decommissioning
reserves. Decommissioning for state-owned nuclear plants are
however paid by the State.
The total amount of operator reserves was estimated to be EUR
38.3bn. After the deduction of the shares paid into the waste disposal
fund, this amount decreased to EUR 14.74bn available for reactor
decommissioning and packaging of nuclear waste. With the
Companies
accelerated shut down of nuclear plants, a part of the income for
Germany and National
funding decommissioning and waste disposal has however stopped. To
public fund
cope with this issue, the German parliament voted a law in December
2016 to transfer radioactive waste management liabilities from
nuclear power plant operators to a public fund managed by the
German State -thus advocating state aid-. In exchange, nuclear power
operators had to make a cash payment to the new fund of about
€24.1 billion (roughly corresponding to the provisions already set
aside. This transfer was approved by the EC (State Aid SA.45296
(2017/N) ) 651.
651State Aid available under :

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/269593/269593_1912030_141_2.pdf
449
Funding
Countries Comments
sources
Since 1998, a levy on nuclear power production is paid into the

Central Nuclear Financial Fund to pay for storage and disposal of
Companies radioactive wastes, including used fuel, and decommissioning. At the
through end of 2017 this fund totalled HUF 283.5 billion.
Hungary
National The operation of the Fund is ensured from the following sources:
public fund • Payments of the Paks Nuclear Power Plant
• Payments for the disposal of radioactive waste from annual budget
of the relevant institution by the central budget
Until 1999, decommissioning funds were accumulated internally by

the nuclear plant operator ENEL. In 1999, the state-owned company
SOGIN was created; the company is in charge of setting up
Companies,
decommissioning programmes. Since 2000, decommissioning is funded
National Fund
Italy by a levy on electricity sales which is set annually by the National
and Final
Authority for the Electricity and Gas according to SOGIN’s
Consumer
programmes; this levy is allocated by the distribution companies, and
transferred twice a month to the national fund ‘Cassa per i Servizi
Elettrici e Ambientali’ (CSEA)
Most of the funding for decommissioning of Lithuanian NPP come

from the EU through the Ignalina International Decommissioning
EU funds and
Support Fund (IIDSF) to which the European Union is the largest
Companies
contributor (~95%). In addition, a National Fund called SE Ignalina
Lithuania through
NPP National Decommissioning Fund created in 1995 provides further
National
funds. Payments made to the National Fund by the Ignalina NPP come
public fund
in deduction from sold electricity revenue. These deduced amounts
shall be annually approved by the Government.
Norway has no nuclear plants but has built four research reactors.
Two of them, which were state-owned, have already been
decommissioned, the corresponding decommissioning costs were
supported by the State. The two remaining reactors belong to the
Companies
Institute for Energy Technology (IFE); the issue of decommissioning
Norway and National
and waste disposal funding has been discussed by IFE and the State
public funds
but without any clear legal framework. The Government announced
that a separate Government agency will be established in 2018 to
manage the processes related to decommissioning of nuclear
installations and safe nuclear waste management.
The Nuclear Agency and Radioactive Waste (“NADR”) is responsible

with collecting the contributions paid by SNN for the remaining useful
life of Units 1 and 2 and assumed the responsibility for the
management of the entire decommissioning process at the end of
useful lives of the units, and also for the final disposal of the
Companies resulting waste.
through SNN annually paid the following contributions towards NADR:
Romania
National • Contributions for decommissioning of each nuclear reactor in
public fund amount of EUR0.6/MWh of net electricity produced;
Contributions for permanent disposal of the radioactive waste in
amount of EUR1.4/MWh of net electricity produced.
Nuclearelectrica doesn’t get subsidies from the state authorities.
The National Uranium Company received subsidies from 2008 to 2011.
Since 2012, it has not received any subsidy.
450
Funding
Countries Comments
sources
The Fund “National Nuclear Fund” (NNF) for decommissioning of

nuclear facilities and for management of spent fuel and radioactive
waste is managed by the Ministry of Economy and financed from:
• Contributions from the holders of the operating license for nuclear
installations producing electricity.
Final
• Transfer from the budget account of the Ministry of Economy of the
consumer, EU
Slovak Republic as a levy collected by the transmission system
funds,
operator and the regional distribution system operators from final
Slovakia National
customers. This nuclear levy was approved in 2013 by the EC under
public fund
EU State aid rules (SA.31860)652
and
• Subsidies and contributions from the EU funds and other
Companies
international financial institutions
• Government subsidies intended to cover the costs incurred for the
handling of nuclear material or radioactive waste whose source is
unknown, and state subsidies for other reasons (historical deficit, …)
• Proceeds from financial operations.
The funds of the Krško NPP Fund created in 1995 shall be provided
from the levy for every kWh of the Slovenian share of electricity
produced and sold in Slovenia by the Krško NPP.
Based on Decommissioning Program of Krško NPP and the disposal of
Companies
low and intermediate level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel,
through
Slovenia the amount of the levy contribution paid to the Slovenian Fund is
National
regularly paid by GEN energija d.o.o. The amount of levy is
public Fund
EUR3/MWh of electricity produced in NPP Krško and sold in Slovenia;
and is monthly paid to the Fund.
The total obligations and the payment of Krško NEK and GEN energy
in NPP Fund for the period 1995-2014 is EUR 185.59 million.
652State Aid available under :

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/238200/238200_1431108_203_3.pdf
451
Funding
Countries Comments
sources
The “Fund for the financing of activities included in the General

Radioactive Waste Plan” (PGRR) is managed by the state-owned
company Empresa Nacional de Residuos Radiactivos SA (ENRESA). The
fund is fed by several mechanisms:
• To be paid by the operators of the nuclear power plants by way of a
fee calculated as a percentage on the electricity sale price and the
tolls for access to the electricity grid
• To be paid by the operators of the nuclear power plants by way of a
fee calculated on the basis of gross nuclear electricity generation by
each of the plants.
• To be paid by fuel assembly manufacturing for the rendering of
Companies
services for the management of waste deriving from the
through
Spain manufacturing of fuel assemblies at these facilities.
National
• To be paid by other facilities not included in the previous cases for
public Fund
services for the management of waste generated by them by means
of a fee calculated on the basis of the quantity or units of waste
delivered for management and depending on the nature of the waste.
The fund was initially expected to be financed via charges to the
electric tariff , from inputs from the nuclear power plants in
operation and from nuclear fuel industry in Juzbado (Law 54/1997 6th
additional disposition). In 2012, two new taxes are introduced (Law
15/2012) to finance this plan. In addition, the fund includes also the
profitability of its investments.
Companies The nuclear power companies pay a surcharge of SEK 0.05 for every
through kilowatt hour produced to a Government fund, the Nuclear Waste
Sweden
National Fund. This money is used to deal with spent nuclear fuel and to pay
public Fund for decommissioning the Swedish nuclear power plants.
Two separate funds for decommissioning and for waste disposal have
been established and are managed by the Administrative Commission
Companies
of the Decommissioning Waste Disposal Fund (STENFO). Nuclear plant
through
Switzerland operators pay annual contributions into the two funds; their
National
contributions are based on estimated costs reviewed every five years.
public Funds
The latest cost estimates (2016) for decommissioning and waste
disposal amount to about CHF 23.5 Mrd.
452
Funding
Countries Comments
sources
In principle, the operator is responsible for all aspects of

decommissioning. According to legislation in force since April 2011,
a nuclear facility shall be decommissioned directly after final
shutdown and deferred dismantling will not be allowed. During the
operational phase, the licence holder is required to develop a
decommissioning plan describing all the necessary measures to
safely reach the end state of decommissioning, including the
management of radioactive waste, record keeping, etc.
The decommissioning plan serves as the safety basis for all the
activities carried during the decommissioning phase, and it provides
the basis for the financial provisions for the decommissioning costs.
The
Companies The Nuclear Power Act requires the licence holder to have a
Netherlands
financial provision to cover the costs of decommissioning, which will
have to be updated and approved by the authorities. The licence
holder is in principle free to choose the form of the financial
provision. Upon approval, the authorities will assess whether the
financial provision offers sufficient security that the
decommissioning costs are covered at the moment of
decommissioning.
Regarding waste management, the price paid by waste generators to

the Central Organisation for Radioactive Waste (COVRA), a state-
owned company, includes the estimated cost for disposal.
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) is a non-departmental

public body created through the Energy Act 2004. Amongst other
things, it is responsible for decommissioning and cleaning up 17
historical nuclear facilities, and ensuring that all waste products,
both radioactive and non-radioactive, are safely managed.
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and HM
National
Treasury set its annual operational budget, which is a combination
United public funds
of Government funding and income from its commercial assets.
Kingdom and
In addition, the decommissioning of second generation nuclear
Companies
power plants based on Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactor are funded by
their operator (EDF Energy). Decommissioning funds for these
entities will be gathered via the Nuclear Liabilities Fund, which was
created in 1996. The operator makes quarterly payments to the
Fund, and a review is undertaken every 10 years (next in 2025). The
fund currently gathers approximately £ 9 billion (€ 10.5 billion).
Source: own research
453
454

Energy Prices and Costs - Final Report - Annexes v12.3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Energy Prices and Costs - Final Report - Annexes v12.3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Energy Prices and Costs - Final Report - Annexes v12.3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Study on Energy Prices,

Costs and Subsidies and

Annexes to the Final report

Rotterdam, 3 September 2018

Client: European Commission – DG Energy

Service request under framework contract MOVE/ENER/SRD.1/2016-498

Annex A: Country and NACE abbreviations ........................................................ 7

Annex K: T4 – Country and sector subsidies factsheets ..................................... 400

Sector factsheets............................................................................................ 432

Annex L: T4 - Results from the econometric analysis ....................................... 442

Annex M: T4 - Financial supports to the nuclear industry .................................. 444

1.2 Non-R&D financial support measures to nuclear industry .............................. 445

Table 0-1: Country abbreviations list (ISO 2-digit codes) ............................................................... 7

No table of figures entries found.

Annex A: Country and NACE abbreviations

EU28 Code Non-EU G20 Code

Table 0-2: NACE code list

Annex B: T1 - International energy prices –

Unable to source wholesale price, used

Electricity Retail Household Prices

Electricity Retail Industrial Prices

Band ID : 2 000 MWh <

Natural gas wholesale prices

AT Platts Hub; Simple average of daily

BE Platts Hub; Simple average of daily

ID Knoema ( World Gas Indonesian Liquified Natural Gas

Natural gas retail household prices

Band D2 : 20 GJ < Consumption

Natural gas retail industrial prices

Excluding VAT and other

Band I4 : 100 000 GJ < Selected as industrial consumption band

Petroleum products – petrol retail prices

Petroleum products – diesel retail prices

AG GIZ international fuel prices

Petroleum products – LPG retail prices

Petroleum products – CNG retail prices

Petroleum products – High sulphur fuel oil prices

Petroleum products – Low sulphur fuel oil prices

Petroleum products – Heating oil prices

Petroleum products: crude oil prices

Annex C: T1 - International energy prices –

Table 0-1: Box plot of EU28 wholesale electricity prices 2008-2017

Source: Own calculations

40 EU28 - W eighted Avg.

Source: Own calculations

Source: Own calculations

Source: Own calculations

Source: Own calculations

Source: Own calculations

Source: Own calculations

Source: Own calculations

Annex D: T2 - List of countries available for calculation of energy cost

Annex E: T2 - Evolution of the energy cost shares

Annex F: T2 & T4 - Description of E3ME

E3ME’s basic structure and data

The main dimensions of the model

The main dimensions of E3ME are:

Standard outputs from the model

E3 linkages in the E3ME model