Determinants of Energy Cooperatives’ Development in Rural Areas—Evidence from Poland
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- the generation of electricity or biogas, or heat in RES systems;
- the balancing of the demand for the auxiliaries of the energy cooperative and its members.
2. The Background of Energy Cooperatives
2.1. Energy Cooperatives as a Response to Renewable Energy Community (REC) and Citizens Energy Community (CEC)
- increase the energy independence of rural areas;
- improve living and business conditions in rural areas, including increasing the competitiveness of the agri-food sector;
- increase the use of local renewable resources.
- in a rural or urban-rural municipality or in no more than three neighboring municipalities of this kind;
- in the area of operation of one distribution-system operator. The area of operation of an energy cooperative is to be determined on the basis of the places where the generators and consumers who are members of the cooperative are connected to the electricity distribution network or gas distribution network or district heating network;
- as part of low- and medium-voltage networks.
2.2. The Functioning and Billing Rules in an Energy Cooperative
- a fee for energy billing;
- a variable distribution fee;
- costs of commercial balancing.
2.3. Legal Conditions and Assumptions for Energy Cooperatives
- Energy cooperatives may be established only in rural or urban-rural municipalities.
- The total capacity of the cooperative’s RES system must cover no less than 70% of its auxiliaries.
- The maximum capacity generated by the energy cooperative is not to exceed 10 MW (30 MW for heat).
- The maximum number of members is 999.
- The energy cooperative generates electricity (as well as biogas or heat) exclusively for its auxiliaries and the auxiliaries of its members.
- The cooperative discharges the surplus to the common distribution network. The billing of the provision and consumption of energy to and from the network is carried out in the system of discounts at the ratio of 1:0.6—i.e., with the possibility of recovery by the cooperative of 60% of previously produced (and unused) energy.
- Individual prosumers may benefit from discounts at the ratio of 1:0.8 or 1:0.7, depending on the capacity of their sources.
- The “external” balancing of cooperatives with the seller and the distribution system operator takes place during the annual billing period.
- The “internal” balancing of energy between the members of the cooperative is carried out within one hour. From the sum of energy taken within an hour, the sum of energy fed in at the same time is subtracted. Thus for billing purposes only the result of this calculation is regarded as energy fed into or drawn from the network (depending on the result), while the rest is treated as self-consumption, which is not subject to the system of discounts or charges.
- The internal billing model can be run for any period—e.g., from an hour to a year.
- The difference in the amount of energy fed in or drawn out in the different phases is irrelevant, as the amount of energy is added to the net amount in one hour and is thus balanced. Single-phase and three-phase systems are treated the same.
- The surplus of energy fed into the network in relation to the energy drawn out at a given moment is accumulated in the network deposit during the annual billing period. After 12 months, the stock is reduced to zero.
3. Materials and Methods (Optimization Model)
3.1. Assumptions for Creating a Sample of the Energy Cooperative for Simulation Purposes
3.2. Characteristics of Energy Cooperatives Adopted for Simulation Purposes
- the location character—the simulation was made for participants in two southern voivodeships (administrative divisions), Małopolskie and Śląskie, and the selection took account of different locations of municipalities within the voivodeships. The selection of two different voivodeships was also aimed at reflecting potentially different solar levels and thus the efficiency of generation.
- a different level of electricity demand—this resulted in cooperatives with demand ranging from 762 MWh/year to 9759 MWh/year. Within this criterion, participants were also selected taking account of the diversity of their individual energy demands. The cooperative included participants with negligible consumption, oscillating around one MWh/year, up to 3.5 GWh.
- the nature of participants’ business activity—the selection of participants reflected the division in Polish law according to PKD codes (Polish Classification of Activities) relevant for typical agricultural activities, i.e., crop, vegetable, cereal production, raising of poultry, pigs and cattle as well as services for the agricultural sector. The complete classification is shown in Table 1.
- the electricity consumption profile of each member of the cooperative—the full range and variety of tariffs applicable in Poland—was taken into account, which may exist among the members of energy cooperatives. All analytical scenarios included entities belonging to one-, two- or three-zone tariffs, thus mapping the diverse nature of energy consumption. The shape of the profiles of the participants in the cooperatives is shown in Figure 1, and the belonging of differently profiled members to specific cooperatives in Table 1.
- the generation potential of members of the cooperatives—the selection of municipalities took account of the possibility of building renewable energy sources in each technology: wind, photovoltaic, biogas, biomass, water.
- the voltage supply of the members of the cooperatives—within each of the five cooperatives, the participants were consumers connected to the network at both medium and low voltages.
- the size—the aim was also to map cooperatives of different sizes, from 11 to 19 members.
3.3. Optimization Model
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Hypothetical Cooperatives (Energy Cooperatives Adopted for Simulation)
- In each of the cases of energy cooperatives analyzed, there is a significant reduction in the loss on the network deposit, i.e., the energy accumulated in it is used almost entirely within the set billing period. This is particularly evident in the case of Cooperative CP3, where at the end of the year there is only 9 kWh left in the deposit. If the cooperative were not established and its members were not accounted for on an individual basis, the total stock of their deposits would be 4750 kWh. Thus a nearly 100% reduction in lost volume was achieved. The worst results allow for a reduction in energy loss, as much as by 43% from 141,363 kWh to 80,591 kWh.
- In each of the cases of energy cooperatives analyzed, there is an increase in self-consumption, i.e., the consumption of electricity by the cooperative during which the electricity production occurs. This effect is shown in Table 4. The increase in self-consumption translated into a reduction in sending of energy to the network deposit and a reduction in the volume of energy drawn from the deposit. The reduction in the volume of energy fed into the deposit by the cooperative compared to the sum of individual use of the deposit by its members ranged from 2% to 22%. It should be emphasized that the energy fed into the network deposit is drawn from it, taking account of the discount, so minimizing the volume of energy that is sent there is a desirable phenomenon.
- In three out of five cases it was possible to parameterize the optimization model in order to achieve a reduction in the energy consumption from the network. In the case of cooperative CP2, no significant change in the amount collected was observed between the scenario of the aggregate of individual functioning of farms and the cooperative thereby established. The establishment of cooperative CP3 proved to be ineffective from this perspective, since the volume drawn from the network increased by 23%. The optimization objective set in the task, consisting in a minimization of the deposit loss and electricity consumption from the distribution network, is also very important from the perspective of aspects of economic rationality not analyzed within the framework of the paper, but extremely important. Energy consumption from the network outside the network deposit is billed each time at full purchase cost including both the electricity component as a commodity and full distribution fees relating to its delivery. The loss of electricity in the deposit after the billing period is closed is of a similar nature.
- In order to present the economic benefits of the operation of energy cooperatives, Table 5 presents the results of analyses for the example cooperative CP4 (Source data, calculation formulas and results are available as Supplementary Materials—at public source file “Analysis_CP4.xls”) taking account of the costs of energy, costs of distribution and power (capacity market) fee, broken down into: (i) costs incurred individually by farms, (ii) costs incurred by farms as prosumers, (iii) costs incurred by farms—members of cooperatives. The calculations were made based on the actual tariff rates [60]. Due to the complexity of the economic analyses, their complete picture is an area of separate analyses and publications conducted by the authors’ team.
- Self-consumption can be considered as a parameter for optimal adaptation of the generation profile to the consumption profile. In the analytical scenario before the establishment of energy cooperatives, the average self-consumption in prosumer farms ranged from 37% to 57%. The establishment of the cooperative made it possible to achieve simultaneous generation and consumption at 54–71%.
4.2. Random Cooperatives
- for small cooperatives, participants with a similar aggregated energy demand whose daily/weekly profiles are negatively correlated as much as possible should be selected;
- for larger cooperatives, aggregated energy demand may vary greatly, but the correlation of annual demand trends should be as close as possible to 1;
- diversification of generation sources should be pursued; optimal results were obtained for cooperatives which had a small hydro-power plant and a wind-power plant, but with a share in production not exceeding 30%.
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Horstink, L.; Wittmayer, J.M.; Ng, K.; Luz, G.P.; Marín-González, E.; Gährs, S.; Campos, I.; Holstenkamp, L.; Oxenaar, S.; Brown, D. Collective Renewable Energy Prosumers and the Promises of the Energy Union: Taking Stock. Energies 2020, 13, 421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Miller, C.A.; Iles, A.; Jones, C.F. The Social Dimensions of Energy Transitions. Sci. Cult. 2013, 22, 135–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clean Energy for All Europeans Package. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/energy-strategy/clean-energy-all-europeans_en (accessed on 18 November 2020).
- International Renewable Energy Agency; European Commission. Renewable Energy Prospects for the European Union; International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA): Abu Dhabi, UAE, 2018; ISBN 978-92-9260-007-5. [Google Scholar]
- Lüth, A.; Weibezahn, J.; Zepter, J.M. On Distributional Effects in Local Electricity Market Designs—Evidence from a German Case Study. Energies 2020, 13, 1993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Candelise, C.; Ruggieri, G. Status and Evolution of the Community Energy Sector in Italy. Energies 2020, 13, 1888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gregg, J.S.; Nyborg, S.; Hansen, M.; Schwanitz, V.J.; Wierling, A.; Zeiss, J.P.; Delvaux, S.; Saenz, V.; Polo-Alvarez, L.; Candelise, C.; et al. Collective Action and Social Innovation in the Energy Sector: A Mobilization Model Perspective. Energies 2020, 13, 651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources; (OJ L 328, 21.12.2018); European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2018.
- Soeiro, S.; Dias, M.F. Renewable Energy Community and the European Energy Market: Main Motivations. Heliyon 2020, 6, e04511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Position Paper: Citizens Energy Communities: Recommendations for a Successful Contribution to Decarbonisation; Eurelectric—Dépôt Légal: D/2019/12.105/13. 2019. Available online: https://www.apren.pt/contents/publicationsothers/eurelectric--citizens-energy-communities.pdf (accessed on 28 December 2020).
- Directive (EU) 2019/944 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on Common Rules for the Internal Market for Electricity and Amending Directive 2012/27/EU; (OJ L 158, 14.6.2019); European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2019.
- Sokołowski, M.M. Renewable and Citizen Energy Communities in the European Union: How (Not) to Regulate Community Energy in National Laws and Policies. J. Energy Nat. Resour. Law 2020, 38, 289–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Report: Energy Community Definitions; H2020-824424 COMPILE: Integrating Community Power in Energy Islands. 2019. Available online: https://www.compile-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/Explanatory-note-on-energy-community-definitions.pdf (accessed on 28 December 2020).
- Ghiani, E.; Giordano, A.; Nieddu, A.; Rosetti, L.; Pilo, F. Planning of a Smart Local Energy Community: The Case of Berchidda Municipality (Italy). Energies 2019, 12, 4629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tomaszewski, K. Klastry energii w Polsce—W kierunku poprawy bezpieczeństwa energetycznego. Koncepcje i uwarunkowania 2020, 4/2019, 68–78. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Ustawa z Dnia 19 Lipca 2019 r. o Zmianie Ustawy o Odnawialnych Źródłach Energii Oraz Niektórych Innych Ustaw (Act of 19 July 2019 Amending the Act on Renewable Energy Sources and Certain Other Acts) (DZ.U. z 2019 r. Poz. 1524). Available online: http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20190001524 (accessed on 28 December 2020).
- Dóci, G.K. Renewable Energy Communities: A Comprehensive Study of Local Energy Initiatives in the Netherlands and Germany. Ph.D. Thesis, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, September 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Debor, S. The Socio-Economic Power of Renewable Energy Production Cooperatives in Germany: Results of an Empirical Assessment. Wupp. Pap. 2014, 187, 25. [Google Scholar]
- Neagu, B.-C.; Ivanov, O.; Grigoras, G.; Gavrilas, M.; Istrate, D.-M. New Market Model with Social and Commercial Tiers for Improved Prosumer Trading in Microgrids. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Future of Rural Energy in Europe (FREE) Initiative. Rural Energy Matters. Report and Recommendations for Policymakers. 2016. Available online: https://www.rural-energy.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Summary-Report-Rural-Energy-Matters.pdf (accessed on 28 December 2020).
- European Commission Smart Villages and Renewable Energy Communities. Available online: https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/sites/enrd/files/enrd_publications/smart_villages-capacity_tools-renewable_energy_communities-v08.pdf (accessed on 21 December 2020).
- Watson, J.K.R. Energy Diversification and Self-Sustainable Smart Villages. In Smart Villages in the EU and beyond; Visvizi, A., Lytras, M.D., Mudri, G., Eds.; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2019; pp. 99–109. ISBN 978-1-78769-846-8. [Google Scholar]
- Safari, M.A.M.; Masseran, N.; Jedi, A.; Mat, S.; Sopian, K.; Bin Abdul Rahim, A.; Zaharim, A. Rural Public Acceptance of Wind and Solar Energy: A Case Study from Mersing, Malaysia. Energies 2020, 13, 3855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agnoletti, M.; Baptista, R.; Henriques, R.; Nogueira, P.; Costa Pinto, L.M.; Ramísio, P.J.; Santoro, A.; Teixeira, J.C.; Vaz, E. A Green City: Impossible Dream or Necessity. In Environmental History in the Making; Joanaz de Melo, C., Vaz, E., Costa Pinto, L.M., Eds.; Environmental History; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; Volume 7, pp. 355–376. ISBN 978-3-319-41137-8. [Google Scholar]
- Wykaz Spółdzielni Energetycznych (List of Energy Cooperatives). Available online: http://www.kowr.gov.pl/odnawialne-zrodla-energii/spoldzielnie-energetyczne/wykaz-spoldzielni-energetycznych (accessed on 18 November 2020).
- Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of The Council on Common Rules for the Internal Market in Electricity (Recast) COM(2016) 864 Final/2—2016/0380(COD). Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52016PC0864R%2801%29 (accessed on 11 November 2020).
- Description of Development of Prosumer Energy Sector in Poland. Polityka Energetyczna-Energy Policy J. 2018. [CrossRef]
- Krzysztof Ignaciuk—RES LEGAL Europe Legal Sources on Renewable Energy (Promotion in Poland—Summary of Support Schemes). Available online: http://www.res-legal.eu/search-by-country/poland/tools-list/c/poland/s/res-e/t/promotion/sum/176/lpid/175/ (accessed on 18 November 2020).
- Ustawa z Dnia 20 Lutego 2015 r. o Odnawialnych Źródłach Energii (Act of February 20, 2015 on Renewable Energy Sources) (Dz.U. 2020 Poz. 261). Available online: http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=wdu20150000478 (accessed on 28 December 2020).
- Hoppe, T.; Coenen, F.H.J.M.; Bekendam, M.T. Renewable Energy Cooperatives as a Stimulating Factor in Household Energy Savings. Energies 2019, 12, 1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sifakis, N.; Savvakis, N.; Daras, T.; Tsoutsos, T. Analysis of the Energy Consumption Behavior of European RES Cooperative Members. Energies 2019, 12, 970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Grève, Z.D.; Bottieau, J.; Vangulick, D.; Wautier, A.; Dapoz, P.-D.; Arrigo, A.; Toubeau, J.-F.; Vallée, F. Machine Learning Techniques for Improving Self-Consumption in Renewable Energy Communities. Energies 2020, 13, 4892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campos, I.; Pontes, L.G.; Marín-González, E.; Gährs, S.; Hall, S.; Holstenkamp, L. Regulatory challenges and opportunities for collective renewable energy prosumers in the EU. Energy Policy 2020, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lowitzsch, J.; Hoicka, C.E.; van Tulder, F.J. Renewable Energy Communities under the 2019 European Clean Energy Package—Governance Model for the Energy Clusters of the Future? Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 122, 109489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wagemans, D.; Scholl, C.; Vasseur, V. Facilitating the Energy Transition—The Governance Role of Local Renewable Energy Cooperatives. Energies 2019, 12, 4171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sikorski, T.; Jasiński, M.; Ropuszyńska-Surma, E.; Węglarz, M.; Kaczorowska, D.; Kostyla, P.; Leonowicz, Z.; Lis, R.; Rezmer, J.; Rojewski, W.; et al. A Case Study on Distributed Energy Resources and Energy-Storage Systems in a Virtual Power Plant Concept: Technical Aspects. Energies 2020, 13, 3086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giordano, A.; Mastroianni, C.; Menniti, D.; Pinnarelli, A.; Sorrentino, N. An Energy Community Implementation: The Unical Energy Cloud. Electronics 2019, 8, 1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Giordano, A.; Mastroianni, C.; Scarcello, L. Optimization Model for IoT-Aware Energy Exchange in Energy Communities for Residential Users. Electronics 2020, 9, 1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eurostat: Renewable Energy Statistics in the EU in 2019. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Renewable_energy_statistics (accessed on 22 December 2020).
- UE Blisko Celu OZE, Polsce Sporo Brakuje (The EU Is Close to the RES Target, Poland Is Far from Achieving It). Available online: https://www.cire.pl/item,209253,1,0,0,0,0,0,ue-blisko-celu-oze-polsce-sporo-brakuje.html (accessed on 22 December 2020).
- Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources and Amending and Subsequently Repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (Text with EEA Relevance) (OJ L 140, 5.6.2009). Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009L0028&from=EN (accessed on 28 December 2020).
- Raport “Rozwój Sektora Odnawialnych Źródeł Energii” (Report: “Development of the Renewable Energy Sector”) Najwyzsza Izba Kontroli 171/2017/P/17/020/KGP. Available online: https://www.nik.gov.pl/kontrole/wyniki-kontroli-nik/pobierz,kgp~p_17_020_201709181219251505737165~01,typ,kk.pdf (accessed on 17 November 2020).
- Piwowar, A.; Dzikuć, M. Development of Renewable Energy Sources in the Context of Threats Resulting from Low-Altitude Emissions in Rural Areas in Poland: A Review. Energies 2019, 12, 3558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Woźniak, M. Sustainable energy economy in rural areas in Poland (Zrównoważona gospodarka energetyczna na obszarach wiejskich w Polsce). Polityka Energ. 2018, T. 21, 69–84. [Google Scholar]
- Ustawa z Dnia 16 Września 1982 r.—Prawo Spółdzielcze (Act of September 16, 1982—Cooperative Law) (Dz. U. z 2018 r. Poz. 1285 Oraz z 2019 r. Poz. 730, 1080, 1100). Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU19820300210 (accessed on 28 December 2020).
- Ustawa z Dnia 4 Października 2018 r. o Spółdzielniach Rolników (Act of October 4, 2018 on Farmers’ Cooperatives) (Dz. U. Poz. 2073). Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20180002073 (accessed on 28 December 2020).
- Energy Regulatory Office Narodowy Potencjał OZE w Liczbach—Stan na 31 Grudnia 2019 r. (The Domestic Renewable Energy Potential in Numbers as of 31 December 2019). Available online: https://www.ure.gov.pl/pl/oze/potencjal-krajowy-oze/5753,Moc-zainstalowana-MW.html (accessed on 18 November 2020).
- Paska, J. Polish Hydropower Resources and Example of Their Utilization. Przegląd Elektrotechniczny 2020, 1, 3–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Księżopolski, K.; Drygas, M.; Pronińska, K.; Nurzyńska, I. The Economic Effects of New Patterns of Energy Efficiency and Heat Sources in Rural Single-Family Houses in Poland. Energies 2020, 13, 6358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministerstwo Rozwoju, Pracy i Technologii Energetyka Prosumencka i Rozproszona (Prosumer and Distributed Energy). Available online: https://www.gov.pl/web/rozwoj-praca-technologia/energetyka-prosumencka-i-rozproszona (accessed on 12 November 2020).
- Gramwzielone.pl Sp. z o. o. The Number of Prosumers in Poland Exceeds 357,000. It’s Time for Energy Storage. Available online: https://www.gramwzielone.pl/energia-sloneczna/104268/liczba-prosumentow-w-polsce-przekracza-357-tys-pora-na-magazyny-energii (accessed on 28 December 2020).
- Polish Press Agency. Polish Solar Farm Has Exceeded the Level of 3400 MW of Capacity. Available online: https://www.wnp.pl/budownictwo/polska-fotowoltaika-przekroczyla-poziom-3400-mw-mocy,440020.html (accessed on 28 December 2020).
- Marks-Bielska, R.; Bielski, S.; Pik, K.; Kurowska, K. The Importance of Renewable Energy Sources in Poland’s Energy Mix. Energies 2020, 13, 4624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministry of Energy Polityka Energetyczna Polski do 2040 r.: Wnioski z Analiz Prognostycznych dla Sektora Paliwowo—Energetycznego (Poland’s Energy Policy Until 2040: Conclusions from Prognostic Analyzes for the Fuel and Energy Sector). Available online: https://www.gov.pl/attachment/cff9e33d-426a-4673-a92b-eb4fb0bf4a04 (accessed on 17 November 2020).
- Dolega, W. Problems, Barriers and Perspectives of RES Development in Poland. In Engineering and Industry; Mavromatakis, F., Siderakis, K., Eds.; Trivent Publishing: Budapest, Hungary, 2016; Volume 3, ISBN 978-615-80340-7-4. [Google Scholar]
- Williams, H.P. Model Building in Mathematical Programming, 5th ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013; ISBN 978-1-118-44333-0. [Google Scholar]
- GLPK (GNU Linear Programming Kit). Available online: https://www.gnu.org/software/glpk/ (accessed on 18 November 2020).
- COIN-OR/CBC. Available online: https://projects.coin-or.org/Cbc (accessed on 18 November 2020).
- Luger, G.F. Artificial Intelligence: Structures and Strategies for Complex Problem Solving, 6th ed.; Pearson Addison-Wesley: Boston, MA, USA, 2009; ISBN 978-0-321-54589-3. [Google Scholar]
- TAURON Dystrybucja S.A. Taryfa dla Energii Elektrycznej na Rok 2020 (Tariff for Electricity for 2020). Available online: https://www.tauron.pl/-/media/offer-documents/firma/taryfa-msp/gze-podstawowe/taryfa_dystrybucyjna.ashx (accessed on 28 December 2020).
- Wróbel, J.; Sołtysik, M.; Rogus, R. Selected Elements of the Neighborly Exchange of Energy—Profitability Evaluation of the Functional Model. Polityka Energ. Energy Policy J. 2019, 22, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cooperative 1 | Cooperative 2 | Cooperative 3 | Cooperative 4 | Cooperative 5 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Voivodeship | Śląskie | Małopolskie | Małopolskie | Śląskie | Śląskie |
Number of members of the cooperative | 11 | 15 | 11 | 15 | 16 |
Profile of agricultural activity 1 and number of members (pcs) | 01.46.Z; (3) 01.13.Z; (3) 01.47.Z; (5) | 01.11.Z; (4) 01.13.Z; (1) 01.19.Z; (4) 01.47.Z; (3) 01.50.Z; (3) | 01.11.Z; (2) 01.13.Z; (2) 01.19.Z; (1) 01.47.Z; (1) 01.50.Z; (5) | 01.13.Z; (4) 01.19.Z; (1) 01.43.Z; (1) 01.47.Z; (3) 01.49.Z; (1) 01.50.Z; (5) | 01.11.Z; (2) 01.13.Z; (2) 01.19.Z; (3) 01.47.Z; (6) 01.50.Z; (2) 01.62.Z; (1) |
Voltage (LV/MV) and number of members (pcs) | LV (4) MV (7) | LV (10) MV (5) | LV (10) MV (1) | LV (8) MV (7) | LV (9) MV (7) |
Tariff group 2 and number of members (pcs) | C11 (2) C12a (1) C22b (1) B21 (1) B23 (6) | C11 (4) C12b (1) C21 (3) C22a (2) B21 (3) B23 (2) | C11 (4) C12a (1) C12b (2) C22a (2) C22b (1) B11 (1) | C11 (6) C21 (2) B21 (3) B23 (4) | C11 (6) C21 (2) C22a (1) B21 (1) B22 (2) B23 (4) |
Energy demand [MWh/year] | 9757 | 3559 | 762 | 3383 | 5922 |
Minimum, mean and maximum energy consumption by a member of the cooperative [MWh/year] | min.: 52 mean: 887 max.: 3574 | min.: 0 mean: 237 max.: 1045 | min.: 3 mean: 69 max.: 312 | min.: 6 mean: 214 max.: 1258 | min.: 1 mean: 328 max.: 1542 |
Cooperative CP1-Members | Cooperative CP2-Members | Cooperative CP3-Members | Cooperative CP4-Members | Cooperative CP5-Members | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Members | 11 | 15 | 11 | 15 | 16 | |
Capacity [kW] | PVPP | 3810 | 1815 | 550 | 1635 | 2605 |
SHPP | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | |
WPP | 3750 | 500 | 0 | 1000 | 1250 | |
BMPP | 400 | 800 | 0 | 400 | 1600 | |
BGPP | 600 | 200 | 0 | 400 | 600 | |
Production | Total [kWh/year] | 8,760,000 | 3,515,000 | 750,000 | 3,635,000 | 6,255,000 |
Average [kWh/day] | 100 | 33 | 13 | 35 | 47 | |
Max [kWh/day] | 1075 | 394 | 120 | 685 | 891 | |
Min [kWh/day] | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Std. dev [kWh/year] | 78 | 25 | 10 | 25 | 34 | |
Consumption | Total [kWh/year] | 9,757,041 | 3,558,868 | 761,883 | 3,383,286 | 5,921,660 |
Average [kWh/day] | 101 | 27 | 8 | 26 | 42 | |
Max [kWh/day] | 651 | 234 | 66 | 285 | 366 | |
Min [kWh/day] | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Std. dev [kWh/year] | 26 | 13 | 2 | 11 | 14 |
Consumption from the Network (Outside the Network Deposit) [kWh/Year] | Sending to the Network Deposit [kWh/Year] | Collection from the Network Deposit [kWh/Year] | Loss on the Network Deposit [kWh/Year] | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cooperative CP1 | (1) | 2,073,952 | 2,522,978 | 1,446,067 | 67,737 |
Cooperative CP1-Members | (2) | 2,143,778 | 2,915,817 | 1,769,080 | 272,049 |
(3) = (1) − (2) | −69,826 | −392,839 | −323,014 | −204,313 | |
(4) = (3)/(2) | −3% | −13% | −18% | −75% | |
Cooperative CP2 | (5) | 487,893 | 1,091,142 | 647,116 | 7571 |
Cooperative CP2-Members | (6) | 483,684 | 1,289,791 | 849,975 | 52,898 |
(7) = (5) − (6) | 4209 | −198,650 | −202,858 | −45,327 | |
(8) = (7)/(6) | 1% | −15% | −24% | −86% | |
Cooperative CP3 | (9) | 149,797 | 344,764 | 206,850 | 9 |
Cooperative CP3-Members | (10) | 122,274 | 352,138 | 241,746 | 4750 |
(11) = (10) − (9) | 27,523 | −7374 | −34,896 | −4741 | |
(12) = (11)/(10) | 23% | −2% | −14% | −100% | |
Cooperative CP4 | (13) | 290,354 | 1,153,711 | 611,642 | 80,591 |
Cooperative CP4-Members | (14) | 332,716 | 1,476,989 | 892,559 | 141,363 |
(15) = (13) − (14) | −42,362 | −323,278 | −280,916 | −60,773 | |
(16) = (15)/(14) | −13% | −22% | −31% | −43% | |
Cooperative CP5 | (17) | 430,477 | 1,787,588 | 1,023,770 | 48,835 |
Cooperative CP5-Members | (18) | 469,204 | 2,034,755 | 1,232,211 | 192,167 |
(19) = (17) − (18) | −38,727 | −247,167 | −208,440 | −143,332 | |
(20) = (19)/(18) | −8% | −12% | −17% | −75% |
Cooperative CP1 | Cooperative CP2 | Cooperative CP3 | Cooperative CP4 | Cooperative CP5 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Self-consumption in a cooperative [%] | 71 | 69 | 54 | 68 | 71 |
Average level of self-consumption among members of an energy cooperative [%] | 57 | 43 | 37 | 48 | 52 |
Stage | Users | Energy Cost | Distribution Cost | Capacity Market | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PLN | PLN | PLN | PLN | ||
1 | Farm1 | 193,958 | 64,035 | 14,923 | 272,916 |
Farm2 | 592,559 | 195,632 | 45,591 | 833,782 | |
Farm3 | 118,430 | 18,588 | 10,730 | 147,748 | |
Farm4 | 148,143 | 23,252 | 13,422 | 184,817 | |
Farm5 | 97,014 | 15,227 | 8790 | 121,031 | |
Farm6 | 59,344 | 6591 | 4706 | 70,641 | |
Farm7 | 66,762 | 7414 | 5295 | 79,471 | |
Farm8 | 61,525 | 6833 | 4879 | 73,238 | |
Farm9 | 86,834 | 9644 | 6886 | 103,364 | |
Farm10 | 15,708 | 4928 | 1073 | 21,708 | |
Farm11 | 2826 | 887 | 193 | 3906 | |
Farm12 | 13,937 | 4372 | 952 | 19,260 | |
Farm13 | 3315 | 1040 | 226 | 4582 | |
Farm14 | 15,262 | 4788 | 1042 | 21,091 | |
Farm15 | 72,372 | 22,703 | 4942 | 100,017 | |
Total (1) | 1,547,988 | 385,933 | 123,651 | 2,057,572 | |
2 | Prosumer1 | 15,920 | 5256 | 1162 | 22,338 |
Prosumer2 | 21,844 | 7212 | 1595 | 30,650 | |
Prosumer3 | 16,426 | 2578 | 1658 | 20,662 | |
Prosumer4 | 24,614 | 3863 | 2367 | 30,843 | |
Prosumer5 | 8502 | 1334 | 757 | 10,594 | |
Prosumer6 | 11,567 | 1264 | 731 | 13,561 | |
Prosumer7 | 13,003 | 1412 | 851 | 15,266 | |
Prosumer8 | 12,237 | 1330 | 807 | 14,374 | |
Prosumer9 | 417 | 40 | 29 | 486 | |
Prosumer10 | 3174 | 996 | 186 | 4355 | |
Prosumer11 | 836 | 262 | 47 | 1145 | |
Prosumer12 | 2869 | 900 | 164 | 3932 | |
Prosumer13 | 1294 | 406 | 73 | 1773 | |
Prosumer14 | 3572 | 1121 | 210 | 4903 | |
Prosumer15 | 15,475 | 4854 | 861 | 21,190 | |
Total (2) | 151,747 | 32,829 | 11,498 | 196,074 | |
3 | Member1 | 15,059 | 4546 | 1186 | 20,792 |
Member2 | 46,006 | 13,890 | 3624 | 63,520 | |
Member3 | 12,637 | 1983 | 1185 | 15,805 | |
Member4 | 15,807 | 2481 | 1482 | 19,770 | |
Member5 | 10,352 | 1625 | 970 | 12,947 | |
Member6 | 5047 | 1061 | 383 | 6491 | |
Member7 | 5678 | 1187 | 431 | 7295 | |
Member8 | 5232 | 1114 | 397 | 6744 | |
Member9 | 7385 | 241 | 560 | 8186 | |
Member10 | 1349 | 423 | 96 | 1869 | |
Member11 | 243 | 76 | 17 | 336 | |
Member12 | 1197 | 375 | 86 | 1658 | |
Member13 | 285 | 89 | 20 | 394 | |
Member14 | 1311 | 411 | 94 | 1815 | |
Member15 | 6215 | 1950 | 444 | 8609 | |
Cooperative (3) | 133,801 | 31,454 | 10,976 | 176,231 | |
(2) − (1) | −1,396,241 | −353,104 | −112,153 | −1,861,497 | |
(3) − (1) | −1,414,187 | −354,479 | −112,675 | −1,881,340 | |
(3) − (2) | −17,946 | −1375 | −522 | −19,843 |
Consumption from the Network (Outside the Network Deposit) [kWh/Year] | Loss on the Network Deposit [kWh/Year] | Subject of Optimization | |
---|---|---|---|
(1) | (2) | (3) = (1) + (2) | |
Cooperative CP1 | 2,073,952 | 67,737 | 2,141,689 |
Cooperative CP1-Members | 2,143,778 | 272,049 | 2,415,827 |
Profitability of the Cooperative CP1 vs. Members scenario | 11.3% | ||
Cooperative CP2 | 487,893 | 7571 | 495,464 |
Cooperative CP2-Members | 483,684 | 52,898 | 536,582 |
Profitability of the Cooperative CP2 vs. Members scenario | 7.7% | ||
Cooperative CP3 | 149,797 | 9 | 149,806 |
Cooperative CP3-Members | 122,274 | 4750 | 127,024 |
Profitability of the Cooperative CP3 vs. Members scenario | −17.9% | ||
Cooperative CP4 | 290,354 | 80,591 | 370,945 |
Cooperative CP4-Members | 332,716 | 141,363 | 474,079 |
Profitability of the Cooperative CP4 vs. Members scenario | 21.8% | ||
Cooperative CP5 | 430,477 | 48,835 | 479,312 |
Cooperative CP5-Members | 469,204 | 192,167 | 661,371 |
Profitability of the Cooperative CP5 vs. Members scenario | 27.5% |
Number of Members | Min. | Quantile 5% | Quantile 25% | Median | Mean | Quantile 75% | Quantile 95% | Max | Standard Deviation | Greater than Zero |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
10 | −27.70 | −10.93 | −1.63 | 2.42 | 1.73 | 6.59 | 11.18 | 18.98 | 6.86 | 683 |
20 | −18.16 | −7.51 | −0.40 | 2.51 | 2.38 | 6.36 | 9.84 | 16.20 | 5.21 | 718 |
30 | −12.21 | −4.03 | 0.62 | 2.66 | 2.77 | 4.97 | 9.05 | 13.24 | 3.90 | 695 |
40 | −7.63 | −2.05 | 0.83 | 2.30 | 2.51 | 4.00 | 7.79 | 11.76 | 2.86 | 847 |
50 | −4.95 | −1.10 | 1.16 | 2.32 | 2.39 | 3.50 | 6.06 | 10.16 | 2.08 | 899 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Jasiński, J.; Kozakiewicz, M.; Sołtysik, M. Determinants of Energy Cooperatives’ Development in Rural Areas—Evidence from Poland. Energies 2021, 14, 319. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14020319
Jasiński J, Kozakiewicz M, Sołtysik M. Determinants of Energy Cooperatives’ Development in Rural Areas—Evidence from Poland. Energies. 2021; 14(2):319. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14020319
Chicago/Turabian StyleJasiński, Jakub, Mariusz Kozakiewicz, and Maciej Sołtysik. 2021. "Determinants of Energy Cooperatives’ Development in Rural Areas—Evidence from Poland" Energies 14, no. 2: 319. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14020319
APA StyleJasiński, J., Kozakiewicz, M., & Sołtysik, M. (2021). Determinants of Energy Cooperatives’ Development in Rural Areas—Evidence from Poland. Energies, 14(2), 319. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14020319