Agenda - DIW Berlin

Transcription

Agenda - DIW Berlin

DIW BMWA Workshop “Perspectives and
Challenges of EU Electricity Enlargement”
Inhalt
Einführung
1
Survey of the Electricity Sector
2
Electricity developments in the region and forecast (Manfred Horn, DIW Berlin)
2
Market reforms of the electricity sector in the new member states (Christian von
Hirschhausen, TU Dresden/DIW Berlin)
25
Effects of EU Accession on Electricity Trade and Prices
38
Results of the EMELIE-Model (Claudia Kemfert and Vitaly Kalashnikov DIW
Berlin)
38
Convergence of electricity wholesale prices in Europe (Georg Zachmann, DIW
Berlin)
47
Fuel Mix of the Electricity Sector
56
Role of nuclear energy (Felix Christian Matthes, Öko-Institut)
56
The competitiveness of polish coal (Markus Reichel, INERCONSULT)
62
Potential of and institutional framework for renewables in the new EU member
states (Petra Opitz, DENA)
79
Status of the Electricity Sector in New Member Countries:
Opportunities in the West?
88
Poland (Maciej Olejniczak, PSE-ELECTRA S.A)
88
Poland (Jerzy Janikowski, PKE)
97
Hungary (Laszlo Varro, HEO)
109
Lituania (Anzelmas Bacauskas, Lietuvos energija)
116
Environmental Aspects
125
Potential for electricity savings in Eastern Europe (Bogdan Atanasiu, EUResearch Center, Ispra)
125
Emission-Trading (Martin Cames, Öko-Institut)
149
Allocation plans for CO2 (Jürgen Krause, Vattenfall)
161
Investment Opportunities in the East
171
Long-term development of electricity production in the new EU member and
candidate states (Nenand Keseric, EEG, Vienna University of Technolgy)
171
Electricity market in South-Eastern Europe (Peter Houzer, Stabilitäspakt)
188
Activities of E.ON in Eastern Europe (Thomas Meyer, E.on )
201
Strategies and activities of CEZ (Vladimir Schmalz, CEZ)
217
Activities of Equipment Suppliers (Udo Schmid, Siemens)
225
Regulations of and Restrictions for Electricity Trade with the
New Member States and Accession Countries
232
Regulation of international electricity exchange (Klaus Krämer, EFET)
232
Bottlenecks in the transport grid from the new member states and future
Accession Countries to Germany and Western Europe (Rüdiger Winkler, IFED)
239
Extension of the electricity transmission systems in Europe: The UCTE-IPS/UPS
study (Matthias Luther, UCTE)
247
Einführung
Diese Broschüre fasst die Ergebnisse des DIW BMWA Workshops zu „Perspektiven und
Herausforderungen der EU Osterweiterung“ zusammen. Ziel der Veranstaltung war es, die
Meinung von Experten aus Politik, Wissenschaft und Wirtschaft über die Auswirkungen der
Erweiterung der Europäischen Union auf den deutschen Energiesektor zusammenzutragen,
um im Anschluss die hierbei gesammelten Informationen in die Projektstudie 13/04
„Auswirkungen der EU-Integration auf die deutsche Energieversorgung“ miteinfließen zu
lassen.
Der DIW BMWA Workshops fand am 17.-18. Februar 2005 in Berlin statt. In anregender
Atmosphäre erörterten unter anderem Vertreter von Energieversorgungsunternehmen,
Verbänden, Regulierungsbehörden, Forschungseinrichtungen, Consultingunternehmen, der
Industrie und der Europäischen Union welche Folgen die Integration der mittel- und
osteuropäischen Staaten in die EU auf deren und den deutschen Energiesektor hat. Die
Komplexität des Themas wurde an der Verschiedenheit der dabei behandelten
Fragestellungen deutlich. Vom länderübergreifenden Vergleich einzelner Industrien (Nuklear:
Matthes, Kohle: Reichel), der Beschreibung nationaler Energiesektoren (Ungarn: Varro,
Polen: Olejniczak, Litauen: Bacauskas, Südosteuropa: Houzer) und einzelner Marktakteure
(CEZ: Schmalz, E.on: Meyer, Siemens: Schmid, PKE: Janikowski) über die Analyse von
Umweltschutzanstrengungen (CO2: Krause, Energieeffizienz: Atanasiu, Emissionshandel:
Cames,
Erneuerbare:
Opitz)
und
Stromhandel
(Preise:
Zachmann,
internationaler
Stromhandel: Krämer, Winkler) bis hin zu zwei generellen Übersichten (Gesamtüberblick:
Horn, Marktreformen: v. Hirschhausen) wurde ein enormes Themenspektrum bewältigt.
Dr. Manfred Horn (DIW Berlin):
Challenges and Perspectives of EU
Electricity-Enlargement
DIW/BMWA workshop Berlin, 17./18.
February 2005
Ort, Datum
Autor
Agenda
1. Current Situation
2. Key figures of new member and
accession countries
3. Electricity exchange
4. Transmission capacities
5. Projections
6. Conclusions.
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
2
Enlargement of EU and electricity integration
•
•
•
•
•
Focus of the workshop (and the study behind) is on new EU
member states Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Baltic states,
Slovakia, Slovenia (since May 2004) and the accessions countries
Bulgaria, Romania (probably in 2007).
Electrical integration of these countries into UCTE was completed
before EU-membership (Centrel countries in 1997, Bulgaria,
Romania 2004).
The Baltic states remain connected to the Russian system
(IPS/UPS), Scandinavian countries to Nordel.
Switzerland is a central piece of UCT but no member of EU (and
thus must not comply with EU-regulation in every detail)
Synchronous production of the enlarged UCTE with other systems
is discussed but does is really make sense economically?
3
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
Current situation in new member countries
• Most new Eastern European member states are dependent
on energy imports, Poland exports some hard coal.
• The share of hydro power in electricity production is
•
•
•
•
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
somewhat higher than in Germany (especially high in Latvia
and Romania) but no export capacities available like in
Scandinavia
Coal and oil production (Romania) is declining.
Environmental legislation stimulates large investments to
reduce pollution.
Wind and other renewable energies will not expand as much
as in Germany.
In the long run these countries are only able to export large
amounts of electricity in case electricity production based on
imported hard coal or nuclear energy increases more than
necessary to cover internal demand.
4
Current German Energy Policy
• Germany decided to restrict the use of nuclear energy to
•
•
•
•
an average of 32 years of full production per power
station. When this goal is achieved, a capacity of more
than 20 GW will be shut down until 2020 (total capacity of
Poland in 2002 was 27 GW).
Germany plans to reduce CO2-Emissions until 2008/12 by
at least 21 % in comparison with 1990. Substantial further
reductions are being discussed (40 % until 2020).
Electricity production based on renewable energies
increases substantially (especially wind) but raises serious
questions (transport, international flows, reliability)
An increasing dependence on gas is an invitation to gas
producers to increase prices
Therefore electricity producers stick to coal but in this
case will not reduce CO2–emissions as desired
5
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
Forces driving electricity exchange
•
•
•
•
•
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
Electricity exchange is stimulated by structural differences of
demand, supply, and costs but depends on transport
capacities.
Between Scandinavia or Russia and central Europe large
differences in climate and resource endowment exists, but
transport bottlenecks and transport cost restrict exchange.
Between Germany and the Eastern European new member
states of EU such differences are small. Electricity exchange
between these countries is driven by history (good
interconnections, current surplus of capacities in Eastern
Europe).
In future, differences of energy policy (pro or contra nuclear
energy or coal, different speed in developing renewable
energy) may drive electricity exchange.
Convergence of environmental legislation may reduce cost
differences and thus electricity exchange in the long run.
6
Agenda
accession countries
5. Projections
4. Conclusions.
7
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
Key figures of new member countries, accession
countries and Germany – year 2002 Population, Mill. GDP (Bill. 1995 $) PES (MTOE) CO2 (Mill. t)
Estonia
Latvia
Lituania
Poland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Czech Republk
Hungary
New Member States
Bularia
Romania
Candidate countries
Sum
Germany
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
1,4
2,3
3,5
38,2
5,4
2,0
10,2
10,2
73,2
8,0
22,3
30,3
103,5
82,5
5,9
7,1
10,2
174,1
25,2
24,6
58,1
58,4
363,6
13,7
36,0
49,7
413,3
2715,4
4,5
4,3
8,6
89,2
18,6
7,0
41,7
25,5
199,2
19,0
37,0
56,0
255,2
346,4
26,9
15,4
22,5
352,0
55,5
12,9
150,4
67,6
703,2
76,1
171,5
247,6
950,8
861,7
8
Key figures of new EU member countries,
accession countries in 2002 – Germany = 100
Population, Mill. GDP (Bill. 1995 $) PEV (MTOE) CO2 (Mill. t)
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Czech Republk
Hungary
New Member States
Bularia
Romania
Candidate countries
Sum
1,7
2,8
4,2
46,3
6,5
2,4
12,4
12,3
88,7
9,7
27,0
36,7
125,4
Germany = 100
0,2
0,3
0,4
6,4
0,9
0,9
2,1
2,2
13,4
0,5
1,3
1,8
15,2
1,3
1,2
2,5
25,8
5,4
2,0
12,0
7,3
57,5
5,5
10,7
16,2
73,7
3,1
1,8
2,6
40,8
6,4
1,5
17,5
7,8
81,6
8,8
19,9
28,7
110,3
9
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
Generation capacity, peak load and production
in TWh in 2002
N e t-m a x .
c a p a c ity
GW
B u lg a ria
E s tlo n ia
L a tv ia
L itu a n ia
P o la n d
R o m a n ia
S lo v a k ia
S lo w e n ia
C z e c h . R e p u b lic
H u n g a ry
T o g e th e r
G e rm a n y
EU 15
1 0 ,2
2 ,4
2 ,2
5 ,8
3 1 ,0
1 7 ,3
7 ,8
2 ,9
1 5 ,1
7 ,7
9 9 ,5
1 2 4 ,4
5 9 8 ,9
P e a k lo a d
P ro d u c tio n
GW
TW h
6 ,8
1 ,3
1 ,2
1 ,7
2 1 ,3
7 ,6
4 ,1
0 ,0
1 2 ,0
6 ,0
6 2 ,0
7 9 ,7
4 2 0 ,0
3 8 ,6
1 2 ,5
3 ,7
1 6 ,1
1 3 2 ,6
5 0 ,4
3 0 ,6
1 3 ,0
7 0 ,4
3 3 ,7
3 8 8 ,6
5 4 4 ,6
2 5 6 0 ,8
S o u rc e : E u ro e le c tric .
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
10
Export-Import Balance and electricity
consumption in 2002
Net
consumption
TW h
Bulgaria
Poland
Romania
Slowakia
Slowenia
Czech republic
Hungary
Germany
Austria
Swiss
France
Netherlands
Balance
export-im port
TW h
32,8
121,1
47,5
26,1
11,7
58,5
37,2
539,0
58,7
58,1
450,9
110,0
Balance/
consumption
%
4,6
7,1
1,0
4,2
1,3
11,4
-4,3
-0,7
-1,8
3,2
75,8
-16,4
14,1
5,8
2,2
16,0
10,7
19,5
-11,4
-0,1
-3,0
5,6
16,8
-14,9
Quelle: UCTE.
11
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
Net generating capacity, reliably available
capacity and peak load in 2002 (Eurprog 2004) - in
GW 35
net generating capacity
30
reliably available capacity
peak load
25
20
15
10
5
0
Bulgaria
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
Estonia
Latvia
Lituania
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Slowenia
Czech rep.
Hungary
12
Agenda
accession countries
3. Projections
4. Conclusions
13
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
Physical electricity flows
• The biggest inflow of electricity to Germany in 2004
•
•
•
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
was from the Czech Republic (more than from France
and Swiss).
Flows from Poland to Germany are small, but exports
via the Czech Republic are likely (Big flows from
Poland to Czech. rep.)
Most German deliveries go to the Netherlands,
Switzerland and Austria. Exports to eastern
neighbours are of minor importance
Germany has the biggest exchange deficit with the
Czech Republic, the highest exchange surplus with
the Netherlands
14
Physical Electricity flows 2004 in GWh
Imports from...
Abk. BG
PL
RO
SK
SLO CZ
H
D
A
F
NL
CH
SL Sum
Exports from...
Bulgaria
Poland
Romania
Slowakia
Slowenia
Czech republic
Hungary
Germany
Austria
Swiss
France
Netherland
Sonstige UCTE
Summe UCTE
BG
PL
RO
SK
SLO
CZ
H
D
A
CH
F
NL
SL
0,9
2,4
9,2
0,6
0,0
0,4
0,1
0,5
0,1
7,7
5,5
0,2
5,0
0,6
6,8 10,2
3,5
0,3
8,1
13,1
0,0
3,2
0,0 2,0
0,6 5,2
0,1
1,7 0,0
0,7
1,6
0,1
7,9
4,4
2,4
1,7
1,4
6,4
0,4
0,4 3,9
2,7
12,7
0,6
4,7
4,2 7,4
0,0
6,4 9,7 12,5 40,7 12,9 21,9
1,9
2,7
5,0
5,3
14,3
2,4
9,5
6,6
23,7
4,8 5,4
15,4 9,7 45,8
1,3 10,9
16,2 21,1
33,7 54,5
4,1 4,6
3,9 31,4 57,1
19,2 117,6 261,2
Quelle: UCTE.
15
Source UCTE
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
Export/Import Balance in 2004, in TWh
Abbr BG PL RO SK SLO CZ
Bulgaria
Poland
Romania
Slowakia
Slowenia
Czech republic
Hungary
Germany
Austria
Swiss
France
Netherlands
H
D
A
CH
F
NL
SL Sum
BG
0,3
4,4 4,7
PL
2,3
9,1
-2,7
0,4 9,1
RO -0,3
0,1
1,0 0,8
SK
-2,4
-5,0 7,7
1,3 1,6
SLO
-1,5
1,7 0,2
CZ
-9,1
5,1
13,0 5,0
14,0
H
-0,1 -7,7
0,1
0,6 -7,1
D
2,7
-13,0
2,9 7,5 -12,3 14,9 2,3 5,0
A
1,5 -5,0 -0,2 -2,9
3,2
1,3 -2,1
CH
-7,5 -3,2
-6,2
16,1 -0,8
F
12,3
6,2
31,0 49,5
NL
-14,8
0,2 -14,6
Quelle: UCTE.
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
Source UCTE
16
Agenda
accession countries
5. Projections
6. Conclusions
17
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
Interconnection of Germany with new member
states
• Overall Germany has import and export capacities of
•
•
•
•
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
about 13 versus 15 GW, this is about 12- 14 % of
installed capacity.
Import-capacities from Poland and Czech Rep. to
Germany are each nearly as big as from France.
But only a share of these capacities can be used at the
same time.
Nobody currently plans to increase capacities between
the UCTE-Main-Block and Centrel-countries until 2015.
Small increases are planned at the periphery of UCTE
(Ukraine/Bulgaria/Rumania, Turkey/Greece and Italy,
Spain/Portugal to UDTE main block.
18
Net Import capacity summer 2003 in GW
Source IFED
1,2+1
1,7
1,8
2,04
2,35
2,95
1,15
19
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
Net Export capacity summer 2003, in GW
Source IFED
0,8+1
1,3
3,8
1,75
4,0
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
0,39?
1,85
20
Utilization of transmission capacities –
bottlenecks ahead?
• The transmission capacity from the Czech Republic to
•
•
•
Germany (2040 MW) was (by way of calculation) fully
utilized for 6000 hours in 2004 (or 68 %). Apparently,
the Czech Rep. exports base load power to Germany
Exports to Poland utilized existing capacities about
2000 hours (or 23 %) in 2004. Imports from Poland are
of minor importance.
The Exchange with Austria is well-balanced (water
power against thermal power).
Transmission capacities for exports to Switzerland are
slightly more utilized than to Poland
21
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
Use of transmission-capacities in hours per year
PL
CZ
A
CH
PL
CZ
A
Transfer Capacities in GW
summer 2003
from Germany to ...
Export
1,3 0,397 1,85 4,00 1,3 0,397 1,85
from ... to Germany
Import
2,35 2,04 1,15 2,95 2,35 2,04 1,15
Exchange in GWh
Exports: Germany to ...
Imports: ... to Germany
use of capacities
in hours per year
export
import
1872
2002
194 8458 11859 2658
605 10557 4270 3836
CH
4,00
2,95
2004
93 6790 10237
442 12122 3866 2693
1440 489 4572 2965 2045 234 3670 2559
257 5175 3713 1300 188 5942 3362 913
Source UCTE, IFED
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
22
Agenda
accession countries
5.
Projections
6. Conclusions
23
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
Long Term projections of electricity demand and
load
•
•
•
Eurelectric: Statistics and Prospects for the
European electricity sector 1980-1990,
2000-2020 (Eurprog 2004)
UCTE System Adequacy report 2005 – 2015
EU: Energy and Transport. Trends to 2030
To save time I will only present some
results of Eurprog 2004.
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
24
Europrog 2004: Growth of BIP
• The BIP in the new member countries is assumed to
•
•
grow on average by 4,6 % (2005-2010) and 4,9 %
(2010-2020), that is 1,9 and 3,1 %-points higher than in
Germany.
The acceleration of growth after 2010 results only from
optimistic assumptions for Poland (3,9 % 2000-2010, 6
% 2010-2020).
In Poland and Hungary industry is the sector with the
highest growth, in most other countries transport and
services.
25
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
Electricitity demand in new member states (+Bulgaria, Romania)
and in Germany in 2002 and 2020 in TWh (Euroelectric)
585
539
600
495,1
500
400
357,2
2002
300
2020
200
100
0
New member states (+ Bulgaria,
Romania)
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
Germany
26
Max. net generating capacity in GW in new member states (+Bulgaria,
Romania) and Germany in GW
140
124
140
112
102
120
100
2002
80
2020
60
40
20
0
New member states (+ Bulgaria, Romania)
Germany
27
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
capacity and peak load in 2020 (Eurprog 2004) - in
GW 35
net generating capacity
30
reliably available capacity
peak load
25
20
15
10
5
0
Bulgaria
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
Estonia
Latvia
Lituania
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Slowenia
Czech rep.
Hungary
28
capacity and peak load in 2020 (Eurprog 2004)
- in GW 140
120
100
Net
generating
capacity
reliably
available
capacity
peak load
80
60
40
20
0
New member states (+BG, Ro)
Germany
29
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
Change of generating capacities, 2002 bis 20020
(Eurprog 2004) - in MW
40000
30000
Germany
New member states
20000
10000
0
-10000
-20000
nuclear
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
coal
oil
gas
water
other
30
Change of net max. generation capacity 2002 2020 (Eurprog 2004) - in GW
15000
Poland
Romania
Lituania
10000
5000
0
-5000
-10000
-15000
nuclear
coal
oil
gas
water
other
31
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
Change of electricity production 2002-2020,
(Eurprog 2004) in in TWh
100
50
0
-50
New member Countries
Germany
-100
-150
nuclear
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
coal
oil/gas
water
Other
32
CO2-Emissions in 1000 t (Eurprog 2004)
Figures for Germany in 2020 - own calculations
by DIW
350000
New member states (+BG, Ro)
Germany
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
1990
2000
2010
2020
33
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
Agenda
accession countries
5. Projections
5.1 Eurprog 2004
5.2 UCTE 2005
6. Conclusions
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
34
Conclusions
• It will be a difficult task for Germany to decommission nuclear
energy, reduce CO -Emissions and assure security of supply.
• Wind power helps to reduce emissions but does not increase
the reliably available generating capacities correspondingly
• Building new gas fired power stations instead of coal fired
ones reduces emissions, but implies a higher price risk.
• A massive increase of electricity imports from Centrel
2
countries is not probable because
-
export capacities in these countries will stagnate at best.
Incumbent companies may not have enough incentives to invest in
transmission lines.
Transmission capacities between UCTE-Main-block and Centrel will
probably stagnate until 2015.
• Germany cannot calculate neither that electricity imports will
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
solve its energy policy problems nor that they endanger its
own energy supply.
35
Backup
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
36
Peak load and production in 2002 in % of installed
capacity
80
peak load
production
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
y
rm
ng
Cz
Ge
Hu
h
ec
an
y
ar
p.
re
en
ov
Sl
Sl
Ro
ov
ma
ak
ia
ia
n ia
d
l an
Po
Lit
ua
n ia
tv i
a
La
ia
to n
Es
Bu
l ga
r ia
0
37
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
Structure of electricity production by energy
carrier in 2002 – in % 100%
80%
Other
60%
water
40%
oil/gas
20%
coal
nuclear
0%
y
rm
Ge
ng
ar
an
y
hr
Cz
ec
Hu
l ic
ep
ov
ub
en
ia
ia
Sl
ak
ov
Sl
Ro
ma
n ia
d
lan
Po
n ia
ua
Li t
tv i
a
La
ia
to n
Es
Bu
ga
ri a
-20%
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
38
Age structure of electricity production capacities
in 2002 in %
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
M
AN
Y
ER
G
U
C
ZE
C
H
H
R
EP
U
N
G
AR
Y
BL
IC
IA
VE
N
SL
O
O
VA
SL
O
M
AN
R
KI
A
IA
D
LA
N
PO
IA
U
AN
LI
TH
LA
TV
IA
IA
TO
N
ES
BU
LG
AR
IA
0%
> 60
>50-60 >40-50 >30-40 >20-30 >10-20 >4 -10
39
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
Agenda
accession countries
5.
Projections
6. Conclusions
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
40
Main Results of System adequacy study of UCTE,
January 2005
• The reliability of supply in many countries of the
•
•
•
UCTE-Main-block will depend on interconnections
from 2007 on and of the block as a whole from 2012
on if only the actual decided projects are realised.
To assure the reliability of the UCTE-Main-block
capacities of 12-14 GW must be installed until 2015
additional to actual decided projects.
The security of electricity supply in Southern-Europe
remains dependent on interconnections
The Centrel-Block will remain in an export position,
Bulgaria/Romania capacities remain adequate.
41
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
Remaining capacity (RC) versus Adequacy Reference margin in
UCTE overall
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
42
UCTE-Study: Interconnections of Country-Blocks
until 2015
• The transmission capacities connecting the UCTE•
•
Main-Block with Nordel, Centrel and South-East
remain unchanged until 2015.
An increase of transmission capacities connecting
the UCTE-Main-Block is expected for
Portugal/Spain (2007 +1,2 GW) and Italy (until 2010
+2,4 GW).
Transmission capacity at the periphery of UCTE
(Ukraine to Romania/Bulgaria and Turkey to SouthEast (Greece) will also increase.
43
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
UCTE-Study: capacity and load development 2005
- 2015 (Scenario A = conservative)
• Installed capacities increase by about 23 GW in UCTE•
•
•
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
Main-Block (continental Europe without
Italy/Portugal/Eastern European countries), by 3 GW in
Centrel, and by about 2 GW in Romania/Bulgaria and in
South-East-Europe each.
The share of fluctuating energies in overall capacities
increases (Regenerative energies to about 10% in 2010)
Reliably available capacity (RAC) nearly stagnates in
the UCTE-Main-Block, increases only marginally in
Centrel-countries and by about 3 GW in
Bulgaria/Romania and South-East each.
Load increases in the UCT-main block more than RAC,
in Bulgaria/Romania + South-East lesser, in Centrelcountries load stagnates.
44
Generation capacity, reference load and nettransition capacity in GW, in January 2005
I P S /U P S
N o rd e l
E n g la n d & W a le s
1 ,7 2
2
2 ,2
0
2
0 ,2 2
0 ,3
CENTREL
U C T E - M a in
GC
RAC
RL
RC
3 ,5
G C = 3 1 8 ,1
R A C = 2 3 9 ,9
R L = 2 0 4 ,4
R C = 3 5 ,5
=
=
=
=
6 6 ,1
5 1 ,7
3 8 ,8
1 2 ,9
1 ,0
0 ,6 0
R u m a n ia &
B u lg a r ia
0 ,2 5
0 ,7
1 ,0
GC
RAC
RL
RC
1
1 ,3
0 ,2 5
2 ,4
S o u th -E A S T
1 ,4 0
7 ,1 3
S p a in + P o r t u g a l
0 ,3 3
It a ly
GC
RAC
RL
RC
1 ,6 0
= 2 1 ,9
= 1 6 ,6
= 1 5 ,4
= 1 ,2
2 6 ,5
1 6 ,2
1 3 ,9
2 ,4
1 ,6 0
0 ,9
0 ,5 0
Legend
G C = G e n e r a tin g P o w e r C a p a c ity
R A C = R e lia b le a v a ila b le c a p a c it y
RL
= R e fe re n c e L o a d
R C = R e m a in in g C a p a c ity
=
=
=
=
0 ,9 0
T u rk e y
S o u rc e : U C T E
45
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
Generation capacity, reference load and nettransition capacity in GW, in January 2015
IP S /U P S
N o rd e l
E n g la n d & W a le s
1 ,7 2
2
2 ,2
0
2
0 ,2 2
1 ,1
CENTREL
U C T E - M a in
GC
RAC
RL
RC
3 ,5
G C = 3 3 1 ,4
R A C = 2 4 0 ,7
R L = 2 1 7 ,1
R C = 2 3 ,6
=
=
=
=
6 9 ,2
5 3 ,8
4 1 ,1
1 2 ,7
1 ,0
0 ,6 0
0 ,2 5
0 ,7
R u m a n ia &
B u lg a r ia
1 ,0
1
1 ,3
S o u th -E A S T
1 ,4 0
9 ,5 0
S p a in + P o r t u g a l
It a ly
0 ,3 3
GC
RAC
RL
RC
= 2 4 ,2
= 1 9 ,0
= 1 6 ,9
= 2 ,1
1 ,6 0
Manfred Horn
16.02.2005
GC
RAC
RL
RC
=
=
=
=
2 8 ,3
1 9 ,2
1 5 ,9
3 ,3
1 ,6 0
0 ,9
0 ,9 0
0 ,5
0 ,5 0
Legend
G C = G e n e r a tin g P o w e r C a p a c ity
R A C = R e lia b le a v a ila b le c a p a c ity
RL
= R e fe re n c e L o a d
R C = R e m a in in g C a p a c ity
1 ,1 5
2 ,4
T u rk e y
0 ,5
S o u rc e : U C T E
46
Benchmarking the Reforms of the
Electricity Sector in the New Member States
Christian von Hirschhausen and Georg Zachmann
DIW Berlin
DIW-BMWA Workshop
„Perspectives and Challenges of EU Electricity Enlargement“
Berlin, 17-18 February 2005
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Introduction
Issues: Privatization, Market Structure, Regulation
Benchmarking Indicators
Quantitative Results
Conclusions
Folie 1
Agenda
1.
Introduction
2.
3.
EU Benchmarking Report
4.
OXERA-based Own Assessment
5.
Conclusions
Folie 2
1. Introduction: Assessing Regulatory Reform in the New
EU-Member States
Countries covered: EU Accession Countries (May 2004)
- UCTE: Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia
- UES: Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia
State of EU-Integration
- Technical integration succeeded in 1995 already (Centrel/UCTE)
- Economic and institutional integration still in progress
- „Acquis communautaire“, mainly Directive 2003/54 far from being fulfilled (cf. EU
Benchmarking Report)
- Critical issues: price adaptation, privatization, competitive market structures
Is the glass half-empty or half-full?
- New EU-Member States have achieved „semi-commercialization“ (J. Stern, 2004)
vs.
- CEE have become „normal“ EU electricity markets (EU Benchmarking Report, 2005)
Folie 3
Survey of the Region:
The Electricity Sector in the New Member Countries
Source: VGE 2000
Folie 4
Survey of the Region:
Electric Power Generation in Eastern Europe
Country
Electricity Production in TWh
in 2004 (Provisional Data)
Czech Republic
77.8
Hungary
30.5
Poland
141.8
Slovakia
28.2
Slovenia
13.5
Croatia
12.4
Bulgaria
41.2
Romania
51.8
CECs and SEECs
together
397.2
Germany
529.5
Source: UCTE
Folie 5
Agenda
1.
Introduction
2.
3.
4.
5.
Conclusions
Folie 6
Issues: Market Structure Ownership and Concentration
Poland: Generation: generation companies are organised in three groups:PKE (partially
Slovenia:Generation: NPSK (nuclear power) and HSE have > 80% ms (state-owned)
privatised, 20% ms), BOT(in state ownership, 20% ms) and PSE (state
Bulgaria: Generation: six state owned and some private Companies
owned).
Plus some
(investors
e.g. EdF, Electrabel, Vattenfall)
ELESIPPs
(100%
state owned)
Transmission:
Transmission: NEK (former incumbent legally unbundled from the 6 generation
Transmission:PSE is the state owned TSO
7 distribution
companies)
is from
the majority
TSO
Distribution:
5 regional
monopolies,
state
owned (79.5% each)
All CEEand
countries
still
away
the
unbundled,
of
electricity
distribution
are in
the hands of thefully
state. the two
Distribution:70%
Distribution: 1 private and 7 state owned regional Distribution Companies.
state
owned
MVM
owns
30%
(including
NPP)
rest
privatized
Hungary:Generation:
smallest
of
the
seven
distribution
companies
were
sold
to
Vattenfall
and RWE.
privatized
and deconcentrated
benchmark
case
! Elektrine
Lithunia:
Generation:
state
owned
Ignalina
NPP
generates
77%,
Lietuvos
Slovak
(SE) has
about 85 % of total generation. ENELasand
Slovakia: Generation:
MVMElectric
(100%
state
owned)
Transmission:
well
as
other
generation
utilities
also
under
state
control
Slovak government agree recently on buying
a 66%
share for 840 MEURO.
Transmission:
TSO
is
Lietuvos
Energija(owning
two
hydro
plants),
96%state
Distribution:
6
completely
privatized
regional
monopolies
RWE,
Eon)
state.
Transmission: SEPS which is in a 100 % ownership of the(EdF,
owned
Distribution: 3 regional distribution companies, partly owned by EdF, Eon and
Distribution:
2 partlystakes
privatised
distribution
RWE
with majority
(51%regional
each) state
owned companies.
mainly
privatised CEZ
generation,
fullyisprivatised
distribution,
but
integration
of
% ms)
a joint stock
company
68%
state-owned
Czech
Republic:
Generation:
Hungary
Romania:
Generation:
state owned (60
nuclear(1),
hydroelectric(1)
and thermal(7)
generation
TSO
and state
owned
generator
Estonia: Eesti
Energia
isCEPS
a vertically
integrated
infrastructure
company
engaged
in
Transmission:
is the
TSO,
state
owned to
with
minority
shares
by CEZ
companies.
Independent
generation
amounts
15%.25-40%of
thehold
thermal
Slovenia the
generation
(90%
market
share
are
ensured
by
the
government
actually
Unbundled
state
owned
generation
and
distribution
In
2003
CEZ
had
the
majority
stakes
in
5
country’s
regional
Distribution:
power plants are to be privatised.
has 96%),
transmission,
and
sale
electricity.
distribution
companies
and adistribution
minority
share
theofother
3 regional distribution
Transmission:
TSO Transelectrica
(fully
statein
owned)
Czech R EE
companies.
Partialy
privatised
privatised
8 regionalgeneration,
Companies
whereas
4generation,
are distribution
state owned,
two areand
Distribution:
Slovakia Only
Croatia:
the state-owned
HEP
group partly
undertakes
transmission
the process
of privatisation
(RWE,CEZ)
and
two are already
Poland in
distribution
in Croatia.
According
to the HEP
Privatisation
Act, atprivatised
least 51 per
Romania (ENEL)
cent of HEP shares will remain state-owned until Croatia’s accession to the
State owned
Bulgaria European
Union.generation, partly privatised distribution
Lithunia
Latvia: The energy sector remains dominated by the vertically integrated 100 per
Estonia cent state-owned Latvenergo, which still controls generation, transmission,
Croatia most
of distribution
and state
sales.owned monopolies
Vertically
integrated
Latvia
Folie 7
Nuclear Power Plants in Eastern Europe
Country
Location
Lithuania
Ignalina
Czech
Republic
Temelin
Dukovany
Slovakia
Bohunice
Mochovce
Hungary
Paks
Slovenia
Krsko
Romania
Cernavoda
Bulgaria
Kosloduy
Russia
10 locations
Ukraine
4 locations
Traditional Power Plant
Hydro Power Plant
Nuclear Power Plant
http://maps.unomaha.edu/Peterson/funda/MapLinks/EuropeOverview/tfsv1map4.jpg
Folie 8
Agenda
1.
Introduction
2.
3.
4.
5.
Conclusions
Folie 9
4.1 According to the EU Benchmarking Report, most Acession
Countries have yet to Implement Substantial Reforms
Declared
market
opening
(%)
Unbundling :
transmission
system
operator
/owner
Unbundling:
Distribution
system
operator
Biggest
generators‘
share of
capacity
(%)
Biggest 3
generators‘
share of
capacity
(%)
Estonia
10
Legal
Legal
90
100
Lativa
76
Accounts
Accounts
95
100
Lithuania
n.k.
Legal
Legal
50
80
Poland
52
Legal
Accounts
15
35
Czech R.
47
Legal
Accounts
65
75
Slovakia
66
Legal
Management
75
85
Hungary
67
Legal
Accounts
30
65
Slovenia
75
Legal
Accounts
70
95
Romania
33
Legal
Management
n.k.
n.k.
Bulgaria
22
Accounts
Accounts
n.k.
n.k.
Germany
100
Legal
Accounts
30
70
UK
100
Ownership
Legal
20
40
Source: Commission of the European Communities (2005).
Folie 10
Market Development Indicators:
Concentration and New Entry
Companies
with at least
5% share of
installed
capacity
Installed
generation
capacity (GW)
Import
capapcity NTC
(GW)
a
b
Import
Capacity
(as % of
installed
capacity)
b/a
Estonia
2
3
2.0
66%
Lativa
1
3
3.6
100%
Lithuania
3
6
3.1
50%
Poland
8
34
3.5
10%
Czech R.
1
16
3.5
23%
Slovakia
1
8
3.0
37%
Hungary
6
8
3.1
38%
Slovenia
3
3
2.1
68%
Romania
7
22
3.5
16%
Bulgaria
7
10
2.0
20%
Germany
4
109
12.2
11%
UK
6
80
2.3
3%
Folie 11
Agenda
1.
Introduction
2.
3.
4.
5.
Conclusions
Folie 12
4. OXERA-based Own Assessment
• According to the Oxera scheme
liberalisation is measured by the
competitive market score and the
network score
•The competitive market score
consists of the upstream score, the
wholesale score and the supply score
beeing weighted equally
•For the final score, the competitive
market score is weighted with 0,7 and
the network score with 0,3
•The initial filtering that was done by
Oxera was not taken over
source:(Qxera,Energy Market competition in the
EU and the G7, September 2003, p. 4)
Folie 13
Quantitative measurement of liberalisation
The detailed scores on the example of Slovenia:
The upstream score depends on the
market shares of the biggest generators
Ɣ
According to the market concentration
70 % of the score is fixed. Technical
market opening and the mechanism of
import deliver equally the other 30 %.
upstream
Ɣ
wholesale
The network score takes into account if
there is unbundling and reg. TPA
Ɣ
network
market share of
biggest generator
market share of
biggest 2 generators
market share of
biggest 3 generators
%
66,20%
%
90,40%
%
96,30%
technical market
opening (export/import) %
mechanism of import R, A oder V
price reports
J/N
share of daily trades
covered by price reports
%
normed contracts
J/N
unbundling transmission
reg.TPA transmission
unbundling distribution
reg.TPA distribution
Unbundling delivers 30 % of the score
and re. TPA delivers 20 % of the score;
for transmission and distribution,
respectively
Ɣ
0,00%
A
J
3,11
market share of
biggest 2
suppliers
J/N
J/N
J/N
J/N
J
J
J
J
Disclaimer:
Wholesale and downstream are
calculated in a similar way
Ɣ
Sources of data are documented in the
appendix of the study report
Folie 14
Divergence Concerning Liberalization
Between the Countries
Liberalisation
Slovenia achieves a level
comparable to Western European
countries
Ɣ
6,50
6,00
5,50
5,00
4,50
Overall modest results concerning
the OXERA-score
Ɣ
4,00
3,50
3,00
2,50
Reforms are seemingly
independent from geographical
position and size
Ɣ
2,00
1,50
1,00
0,50
0,00
Bu Cr Cz Es H La Lit Po R Sl Sl
lg oa ec to un tvi hu la u ov ov
ari tia hi ni ga a an nd m ak en
Folie 15
Agenda
1.
Introduction
2.
3.
4.
5.
Conclusions
Folie 16
5. Conclusions
-The transition from socialist power systems to market-oriented electricity
sectors has not proceeded as planned, but some progress has been made: all
CEE countries still away from the unbundled, fully privatized and
deconcentrated benchmark case
- Three regional markets (CEEC, Balkan, Baltic) are developing in CEEC‘s;
infrastructure, congestion and market structure factors are preventing the
development of an integrated market; however, successful technical
integration into the UCTE. Further market integration will be a slow process,
with a likely focus on the core countries
- Market development is not sufficiently developed to allow “market
competition” with Western Europe
Folie 17
Literature
Bradke, Harald; Cremer, Clemens; Mannsbart, Wilhelm (2001): Potenziale für den Import und Export von Strom.
Karlsruhe, ISI.
EBRD (1996): Transition Report – Infrastructure and Savings. London, European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development.
EBRD (2004): Transition Report 2005. London, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
European Commission (2004): Third Benchmarking Report on the Implementation of the Internal Electricity and Gas
Market. Brussels, DG TREN Draft Working Paper, (March 1).
Global Competition Review (2004): Electricity Regulation 2004. London.
Hirschhausen, Christian von (2002): Modernizing Infrastructure in Transformation Economies – Paving the Way to
European Enlargement. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA (2002).
International Energy Agency (various years): Country Reports. Paris, OECD.
Encharter (2003): Regional Electricity Markets in the ECT Area. Brussels, Encharter.
Kreibig, Uta, Petra Opitz, and Christian von Hirschhausen (2001): The Power Sector in Central and Eastern Europe:
More Competition Needed in the Run-Up to EU Membership. Economic Bulletin, Vol. 38, No. 1 (January), 3338.
Opitz, Petra, and Christian von Hirschhausen (2001): Power Utility Re-Regulation in East European and CIS
Transformation Countries: An Institutional Interpretation. Paper prepared for the Annual Conference of the
International Society for New Institutional Economics (ISNIE), September 13-15, 2001, Berkeley (USA). also
as DIW Discussion Paper 246.
Newberry, David M. (1994): ‘Restructuring and Privatizing Electric Utilities in Eastern Europe’. Economics of
Transition, Vol. 2, No. 3, 291-316.
Newbery, David (2002): Problems of Liberalizing the Electricity Industry. European Economic Review, Vol. 46, No.
3, 918-927.
Stern, Jon, and Junior R. Davis (1998): Regulatory Reform in the Electricity Sector in Eastern Europe. Economics of
Transition, Vol. 6, No. 2, 427-460.
Stern, Jon (2003): The 2002 European Union Electricity Directive and its Implications for the Countries of Central
and Eastern Europe. London Business School; Regulation Initiative Public Policy Paper Series (2003-1).
Folie 18
Backup: Issues: Environment
Derogation from Dir 2001/80/EC (Large Combustion Plants)
Estonia
One specified oil-shale fuelled CHP plant will be exempt until 2010, and two
other oil-shale fuelled CHP plants until 2015 from SO2 emission values.
Hungary
Eight specified electricity plants will only need to comply with provisions of
the LCPD as of 31 Dec 2004 instead of as of 27 Nov 2002.
Lithuania
Two specified pre-1987 (“existing”) public supply CHP plants will have
derogation for NOx and SO2 emissions until end-2015.
Poland
17 (39) electricity plants will have until 31 Dec 2017 (31 Dec 2015) to apply
ELVs for NOx (SO2) that the LCP Directive prescribes as of 1 Jan 2016
(1Jan 2008)
Derogation from Dir 96/61/EC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control)
Latvia
Three electricity plants will only need to apply BAT as of 31 Dec 2008 (one
plant) or as of 31 Dec 2010 (two plants) instead of as of 30 Oct 2007.
Poland
Seven electricity plants plants will only need to apply BAT as of 31 Dec 2010
instead of as of 30 Oct 2007.
Folie 19
Backup: EBRD Infrastructure Indicators of New Member
States
source: EBRD Transition Reports, 0 (no reform) – 4 („market economy“)
4
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Romania
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1998
1999
2000
2001
2003
Folie 20
Backup: Quantitative measurement of liberalisation
The very bad results for Croatia root in
the monopolistic supply structures. HSE
is the only relevant supplier of size
Ɣ
Croatia:
upstream
In the wholesale market there are no
price reports
Ɣ
Concerning the network score there is
only unbundling concerning the
accounts, but no legal unbundling (not
shown)
market share of biggest
supplier
market share of biggest 2
suppliers
market share of biggest 3
suppliers
technical market opening
(export/import)
Ɣ
mechanism of import
wholesale
price reports
%
100,00%
%
100,00%
%
100,00%
%
R, A oder V
J/N
0,00%
R
N
Czechia:
In Czechia the market is already opened
to nearly one third of the customers
Industry
Ɣ
There is also a quite high rate of
customers who were changing their
supplier
Ɣ
On the network side they only lack of
unbundled distribution companies
Ɣ
Households
The market concentration on the
generation side is quite big even though
not monopolistic.
Ɣ
leads to a scoring in the midrange
market opening
% of all consumers
market share biggest
supplier
% ot total supply
market share biggest 2
look upon
suppliers
suppliers
look upon
customers changing
supplier since liberalisation yearly rate of all customers
market opening
% of all consumers
market share biggest
supplier
% ot total supply
suppliers
look upon
suppliers
look upon
customers changing
supplier since liberalisation yearly rate of all customers
30%
27%
47%
62%
8%
30%
23%
42%
59%
8%
Folie 21
Backup: Technical Description I
Location
Type of Reactor
Capacity
(MW/net)
Legal Status
Technical Status
Temelin
DWR, WWER 1000
DWR, WWER 1000
1 x 981
1 x 981
-
-
Dukovany
DWR, WWER 440/213
4 x 417
-
modernization program
Bohunice
DWR, WWER 440/230
DWR, WWER 440/213
2 x 408
2 x 408
closure in 2006
closure in 2008
Mochovce
DWR, WWER 440/213
DWR, WWER 440/213
2 x 408
2 x 408
under construction
improvements in safety,
1996 started program of
incremental reconstruction Æ life time increase
H
Paks
DWR, WWER 440/213
4 x 430
closure > 2020
recent problems of block
2 resolved
SLO
Krsko*
Westinghouse DWR
1 x 632
closure in 2023
modernization took place
RO
Cernavoda
Canadian DeuteriumUranium-Reactor,
CANDU 600
1 x 630
1 x 630
3 x 630
under construction
1 block completion 2006
2 blocks completion 2010
safety improvements
LT
Ignalina
RBMK 1500, water cooling, graphitemoderator
2 x 1185
1 block closure in 2007
1 block closure in 2008
adjustment: 1300MW
gross, improvements
BG
Kosloduy
DWR, WWER 440/230
DWR, WWER 440/230
DWR, WWER 1000
DWR, WWER 1000
2 x 408
2 x 408
2 x 953
2 x 953
closed in 2003
closure in 2006
modernization
construction stop in 1990
improvements in controle
technology/cooling/
radiation- & fire protection
completion unrealistic
CZ
SK
Belene
Sources: Jahrbuch der Atomwirtschaft 2001;
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/electric.html#IntlCapacity;
http://www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/index.html
DWR: Druckwasserreaktor Æ Pressurized Water Reactor
* 50 % Property of Croatia
Folie 22
Backup: Electricity Balancing Arrangements
Balanci
ng
period
(minute
s)
How are
charges
set
Supern.
[S]
National
[N] or
Regional
[R]
Balancing
Balanc.
Groups
allowed
Gate
closure
Dom.
single
gen.
within
balanc.
area?
% of
balanc.
energy
supplied
by non
nat. sites
2002
Estonia
60
TSO
S
n.k.
day ahead
Y
0
Lativa
60
TSO
S
n.k.
2 hours
N
0
Lithuania
60
Reg/TSO
N
N
2 hours
Y
some
Poland
60
market
N
Y
day ahead
N
0
Czech R.
60
market
N
Y
1½ hours
Y
0
Slovakia
60
regulated
N
n.k.
day ahead
Y
25GWh
Hungary
15
regulated
N
Y
day ahead
Y
0
Slovenia
60
market
N
Y
day ahead
Y
0
Romania
60
market
N
n.k.
day ahead
N
0
Bulgaria
60
regulated
N
N
day ahead
N
0
Germany
15
market
R
Y
3during
day
Y
0
UK
30
market
N
Y
1/2 hour
N
n.k.
Source: Commission of the European Communities (2005)
Folie 23
Backup: Electricity: Security of Supply
Supply Demand Position
Forecast 2005
of reserve
generation
capacity GW
As % of
generation
capacity
Import capacity
(% generation
capacity)
% p.a.
increase in
peak load
(2004)
Estonia
n.k.
27
75
0.5
Lativa
n.k.
12
>100
1.5
Lithuania
1.3
16
50
3.0
Poland
6.3
5
10
1.3
Czech R.
2.3
5
23
3.0
Slovakia
0.2
8
44
1.5
Hungary
0.0
27
22
1.5
Slovenia
0.2
12
53
3.0
Romania
1.3
11
6
4.0
Bulgaria
2.1
20
10
1.0
Germany
4.5
5
14
1.9
UK
n.k.
c.10
3
5.3
Folie 24
Backup: Market Structure in Import and Production of
Gas
% of gas
from
domestic
production
% of
gasfromimpo
rts"
no. of
imports
ources"
No. Of companies
with at least 5%
share of available
gas
% of
available gas
controlled by
argest
company
Gas release
programme
Existence of
NBP type
trading
Estonia
0%
100%
1
3
50%
no
no
Latvia
0%
100%
1
1
100%
no
no
Lithuania
0%
100%
1
2
59%
no
no
Poland
33%
67%
4
1
98%
no
no
Czech
1%
99%
2
1
99%
no
no
Slovakia
2%
98%
1
1
100%
no
no
Hungary
15%
85%
4
1
100%
no
no
Slovenia
1%
99%
3
1
100%
no
no
Romania
70%
30%
1
4
87%
yes
limited
Bulgaria
1%
99%
1
1
100%
yes
no
Germany
18%
82%
4
12
50%
in progress
no
UK
92%
8%
5
25%
completed
signficant
Folie 25
Vitaly Kalashnikov
DIW Berlin
Eastern Enlargement of the
Electricity Market in EuropeResults of the EMELIE
Model
Agenda
1. Issues
2. The EMELIE-Model
3. Results: Energy Prices, Fuel Mix
4. Conclusions
BMWA
17th February 2005
2
1. Issues
- Consequences of liberalization and of EUenlargement on the electricity market.
- One-period modelling behaviour for
market agents.
- Statistical data mostly from year 2003.
BMWA
17th February 2005
3
Agenda
1. Issues
2. The EMELIE-Model
3. Results: Energy prices, Fuel Mix
4. Conclusions
BMWA
17th February 2005
4
2.1 The EMELIE-Model (Electricity Market
Liberalisation in Europe, DIW Berlin, et al.)
- Game theoretical modelling tool, which includes inter- and
intraregional electricity trade.
- Different load types (base and peak).
- 12 Technologies: Nuclear, Gas, Coal, Lignite, Oil, Hydro,
Wind, 5 CHP-Types.
- 3 Market Scenarios: Perfect Competition, Cournot-Nash,
Stackelberg, (Cross-ownership)
- Possibility to include emission reduction policy
Original version:
- 8 participating countries :
Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Holland, Norway, Sweden,
Germany, France.
- 26 (national) agents on the market
(8 of them are price takers, so-called Fringes).
BMWA
17th February 2005
5
2.2 The New Member Countries
– 8 Main players
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Poland: ELEKTROWNIA BELCHATOW SA
Bulgarian: NEK
Czech Republic: CEZ
Slovakia: SE
Croatian: HEP
Rumanian: SC HIDRO- and TERMOELECTRICA
Hungary: MVM
– Rest is competitive fringe (7)
– Transmission capacities: NTC-values from
UCTE
- Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia not included due to
the absence of the grid to EU
BMWA
17th February 2005
6
REGIONS/ Countries
-Companies
-Distance
-Capacity of grid
COMPANIES
-Technology
-Production Capacities
-var./fixed prod. costs
MARKETS
-Constant elasticity
of demand
EMELIE
COSTS
PRODUCTION
DATA
MARKET SHARE
BMWA
17th February 2005
PRICES
TRADED
QUANTITIES
(economic)
-Export
-Import
-Net-Export
BUSINESS DATA
-Revenue
-Margin
UTILIZATION OF
TECHNOLOGY
INDEX OF MARKET
CONCENTRATION
7
Demand and supply for various types of
firm equilibrium behaviour
price
STRA
STACK
REF
BMWA
17th February 2005
COMP
demand/supply
8
Agenda
1. Issues
2. The EMELIE-Model
3. Results: Energy prices, Fuel Mix
4. Conclusions
BMWA
17th February 2005
9
3. First Results
– Preliminary results of first computations with the
extended model
– Effects of the East-West integration on electricity
prices and on the fuel mix
– Changes in CO2 emissions ( for Western Europe)
BMWA
17th February 2005
10
Wholesale price changes, in %
20,0
15,0
10,0
COMP
%
5,0
STACK
STRA
0,0
-5,0
-10,0
Germany
France
Belgium
Chech
Slovakia
BMWA
17th February 2005
11
Fuel mix change due to East-West conncetion, in %
10
8
Base load for all
countries
6
4
Nuclear
%
Coal
Lignite
2
Gas
0
-2
-4
REF
COMP
STACK
Scenarios
STRA
10
8
Base load for
Germany
6
4
2
Nuclear
Coal
0
Lignite
Gas
-2
-4
-6
BMWA
17th February 2005
-8
-10
12
CO2 emission changes, for
Western Europe, %.
0,1
REF
COMP
STACK
STRA
-0,1
-0,3
%
-0,5
Reihe1
-0,7
-0,9
-1,1
-1,3
-1,5
Scenarios
BMWA
17th February 2005
13
Model: Equations (1)
Pay-off optimization and restrictions:
Optimization function:
§ υ( f , r )
·
mc( f ) + τ ( f , r ) + t ( f , r ) = pe(r )¨¨1 −
× nash¸¸,
σ (r )
©
¹
∀r ∈ R, ∀f ∈ F
Restrictions:
i) Total productions of electricity of firm is equal to the total supply of
the same firm:
x(i , f ) =
s( f , r )
∀f ∈ F
¦
i∈I
¦
r∈R
with I – set of technologies,
x(i,f) – production of electricity of the firm f with technology i.
BMWA
17th February 2005
14
Model: Equations (2)
ii) Aggregated supply of Firmes in region r is equal to the total
demand in the region:
¦
f ∈F
§ pe (r ) ·
¸¸
s ( f , r ) = de 0 (r ) ⋅ ¨¨
© pe 0 (r ) ¹
− σ (r )
∀r ∈ R
iii) Trade flows are bounded by grid-capacity :
(
)
(
netx r , r * ≤ cap r , r *
)
∀r , r * ∈ R
iv) Production per technology is also bounded:
x ( i, f
) ≤ inst ( i, f )
BMWA
17th February 2005
∀i ∈ I, f ∈ F
15
Table: wholesale price changes (%)
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Holland
Norway
Sweden
Bulgaria
Chech
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Slowenia
Croatien
Ungarn
all
BMWA
17th February 2005
prices: (euro/MWh)
REF
COMP
STACK
STRA
0,0000000000 0,0000000000 0,1655286571 0,3739871182
0,0000000000 -6,6862170088 -3,5532994924 -3,2185206098
0,0000000000 0,0000000000 -0,9322560597 -0,9322560597
0,0000000000 0,0000000000 0,3976143141 -0,0399680256
0,0000000000 -4,7890535918 -7,8460769615 -8,8453159041
0,0000000000 0,0000000000 0,0000000000 0,2725620836
0,0000000000 -0,1507159005 -0,8759124088 -0,8752735230
0,0000000000 0,0000000000 0,0000000000 0,0729394602
0,0000000000 0,0000000000 0,0000000000 0,0000000000
0,0000000000 12,7836611195 10,6546854942 13,5430038511
0,0000000000 0,0000000000 0,0000000000 0,0000000000
0,0000000000 0,0000000000 0,0000000000 0,0000000000
0,0000000000 0,1195389682 14,6489859594 15,5850234009
0,0000000000 0,0000000000 0,0000000000 0,0000000000
0,0000000000 0,0000000000 0,0000000000 0,0000000000
0,0000000000 0,0000000000 0,0000000000 0,0000000000
0,0000000000 -0,9208103131 -1,6244624940 -2,4029574861
16
Table: fuel mix changes (%)
Technology REF
COMP
STACK
STRA
base
peak
base
peak
base
peak
base
peak
Nuclear
0,25316456 -0,21645022
0
0 1,43084261
0 1,74603175
0
Coal
-0,84388186 -0,31612223 -1,61662818
0 -3,93258427
0 -1,35135135
0
Lignite
0,38910506 3,0982906 3,44827586 3,05343511 8,29875519 6,84931507 8,14814815 6,84931507
Gas
-2,0797227 -0,67264574
0 1,57894737
0 1,67130919 -2,43902439 1,67130919
Oil
-0,70621469 -1,04821803
0
0
0
0
0
0
CHP-gas
0,95419847 -0,10277492
0
0 -0,28653295
0
0
0
CHP-coal 3,67346939 -0,1002004 -5,14096186
0
0
0
0
0
CHP-oil
-1,62337662
0
-0,53
0
0 -53,4632035
0 -53,4632035
CHP-bio
0
0
0
0
0 -15,2694611
0 -15,5223881
CHP-other 0,18903592 -0,1048218
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hydro
2,00803213 -0,10362694
0
0 -1,2987013
0 -1,62337662
0
Wind
0,79491256
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
BMWA
17th February 2005
17
Price Developments in CEECs
DIW BMWA Workshop:
„Perspectives and Challenges of EU
Electricity Enlargement“ Berlin,
17-18 February 2005
Georg Zachmann
(DIW Berlin)
Agenda
1.
2.
3.
4.
Wholesale Prices
Cross Border Transmission Prices
Retail Prices
Summary
2
1. Wholesale Markets in CEECs
Physical Energy flows in Oct 2004
Power Exchange
(Traded Volume / total Consumption 2004)
Gielda (1.9TWh /130TWh= 1.4%)
EEX (60 TWh / 466 TWh = 13%)
OTE (0.3 TWh / 55TWh = 0.5%)
Borzen (0.3 TWh / 12.6 TWh = 2.2%)
OPCOM (sets SMP for all 46 TWh)
Source: UCTE 2004
Source: UCTE and Websites
3
1. Spot Market Prices for Electricity in the 13th hour
in EUR/MWh
-High volatility
-Prices are sometimes at
1CzK/MWh
-Price spikes occure
-Very low volatility
-Prices almost always in
the region of 20-40 EUR
-Moderate volatility
-Price spikes occure
4
1. Spot Market Volumes for Electricity in the 13th
hour in MWh
-Almost no trade
-Steadily increasing
trading activities
-Constant at a low
level
5
1. Daily Profile of Wholesale Spot Prices for
Wednesday, February 9th 2005 in EUR/MWh
Source: Power Exchange Websites
6
1. Some Conclusions
– Liquidity is by far insufficient in CEE-day ahead
wholesale markets
– Wholesale spot prices are clearly not the result of
competitive markets
– In the last two years, no significant development of
PolPX and OTE can be observed.
7
1.
2.
3.
4.
Wholesale Prices
Retail Prices
Summary
8
2. Cross Border Transmission Prices
Daily profile of wholesale day ahead prices and transmission
auction results for Czech Republic and Germany for Wednsday,
February 9th 2005 in EUR/MWh
Taking into account
30% transmission
losses and the costs
associated to using
the national TS, the
Czech day ahead
prices given by OTE
are not competitve
with German ones.
9
Source: Power Exchange Websites
2. Cross Border Transmission Prices
http://www.e-trace.biz/ - Website Snapshot of 16th February 2005
10
Principle Component Analysis of
European Spot Wholesale Prices
11
Day Ahead Cross-Border Trade Plays
a Relatively Minor Role
– Taking into account wholesale spot prices,
transmission costs, cross border auction results
and losses, there would be no incentive for
importing Czech power to Germany
– Cross border trading on the spot market is not yet
workable
– Market outcomes cannot be explained with
competitive behaviour
– How does trade work in reality is unclear (to us)
12
1.
2.
3.
4.
Wholesale Prices
Retail Prices
Summary
13
3. Retail Price
Electricity prices to big industrial, small comercial and household
consumers without taxes (in EUR/MWh)
24GWh per
year
50 MWh per
year
3.5 MWh
per year
Czech R
41
60
68
Estonia
39
53
58
Latvia
35
68
58
Lithuania
45
70
54
Hungary
55
166
84
Poland
42
81
65
Slovenia
45
97
86
Slovakia
67
93
105
Romania
47
68
Bulgaria
37
49
51
Germany
63
149
128
14
Source: Eurostat
3. Retail Prices
– Social tariffs still persist
– German, Hungarian and Slovak Retail Prices are
highest
– Polish and Czech Industrial Prices are one third
below German ones
15
1.
2.
3.
4.
Wholesale Prices
Retail Prices
Summary
16
Summary
- Wholesale Spot Markets are not yet working
- Cross border spot markets are yet to be
established
- Retail price differentials are still significant
- Thus, no signs of a single European Market
17
The Role of Nuclear Energy
DIW/BMWA-Workshop
“Challenges and Perspectives of EU Electricity-Enlargement”
www.oeko.de
Berlin, 17 February 2005
Dr. Felix Chr. Matthes
Background
•
Convergence of the economic framework
– Privatisation of the electricity sector
– Liberalisation of electricity and gas markets
– EU emissions trading scheme
– State aid provisions
•
Remaining differences between the new Member States
– General energy policy approaches (coal, natural gas,
nuclear, market concentration)
www.oeko.de
– Positioning of power generation companies and their
strategies (e.g. future role of CEZ in Europe!)
– Dealing with the nuclear chain (decommissioning funds,
final storage, liability)
•
Recent & future EU competition & energy & nuclear policies
Czech Republic
30
New Projects?
Temelin 3
(2010-2020)
Official projection
Temelin-2
Temelin-1
25
Dukovany-4
Dukovany-3
Dukovany-2
TWh
20
Dukovany-1
15
10
www.oeko.de
5
0
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
But: CEZ announcement to invest in no NPP before 2030 (12/2004)
Slovakia
20
Official projection
Mochovce-2
Mochovce-1
Bohunice-4
Bohunice-3
Bohunice-2
Bohunice-1
Bohunice-A1
18
16
14
New Projects?
Mochovce 3
Mochovce 4
TWh
12
10
8
6
Shut down
2008
www.oeko.de
4
2
2006
0
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
Hungary
16
Official projection
Paks-4
14
Paks-3
Paks-2
Paks-1
12
TWh
10
8
6
4
www.oeko.de
2
0
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
Slovenia
6
Official projection
Krsko
5
TWh
4
3
2
www.oeko.de
1
0
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
Lithuania
16
Official projection
Ignalina-2
14
Ignalina-1
New Projects?
Ignalina X
12
TWh
10
Shut down
2009
Option 1:
No new NPP
Option 2:
New NPP in 2010
(unrealistic)
8
6
Option 3:
New NPP in 2020
2004
4
www.oeko.de
2
0
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2015
2020
Romania
22
Official projection
20
Cernovoda-2
New Projects?
Cernovoda-3?
Cernovoda-4?
Cernovoda-1
18
16
beyond 2020?
Cernovoda-5?
TWh
14
12
10
New NPP
Cernovoda-2
8
6
www.oeko.de
4
2
0
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Bulgaria
20
Official projection
New Projects?
Kozloduy-7?
Belene?
Kozloduy-6
18
Kozloduy-5
Kozloduy-4
16
Kozloduy-3
Kozloduy-2
14
Kozloduy-1
TWh
12
10
8
www.oeko.de
6
4
Shut down
2006-2010?
2
2006-2010?
0
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
Poland
• No power generation from nuclear until now
• Cancellation of the first (unfinished) NPP project in 1989
• Energy Policy of Poland
(adopted by the Council of Ministers on 4 January 2005)
www.oeko.de
– Start-up of the first nuclear power station around 2021-2022
is projected in all the variants. Earlier start-up is considered
not viable due to social and technological reasons, even if
the decision on starting the investment preparations were
to be taken today.
– Conducting social consultations with regards to the nuclear
power construction program - realized under the leadership
of the minister responsible for economy.
• Outcome remains to be questionable (e.g. elections in 2005)
Summary
•
In some of the new EU Member States (and two of the
remaining accession countries) nuclear power generation
plays a significant role in electricity sector
•
Group of countries
– Maintaining the status quo (Hungary, Czech Republic,
Slovenia)
– Shut down of significant capacities and low probability of
new NPP projects (Lithuania)
www.oeko.de
– Shut down of significant capacities and foreseeable new
NPP investments (Slovakia)
– Speculative extension of nuclear generation capacities
(Romania, Bulgaria, Poland)
•
Major (additional) electricity exports from NPPs from new
Member States remain to by questionable
www.oeko.de
Thank you
very much
Dr. Felix Chr. Matthes
Energy & Climate Division
Berlin Office
Novalisstrasse 10
D-10115 Berlin
[email protected]
www.oeko.de
The competitiveness
of polish coal
Dr. Markus Reichel
INERCONSULT Dr. Reichel & Co. GmbH
Berlin, 17.02.05
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Organization and ownership structure
3. Restructuring of the hard coal mining
4. Forecast economic and financial position of hard coal
mining sector
Berlin 17 II 2005
2
1. Introduction
mining sector
Berlin 17 II 2005
3
Prices and sales of coal on domestic market and export in
2004
in
1000 t
PLN/t
240
10 000
200
8 000
160
6 000
120
4 000
80
2 000
40
Month
Domestic market
Export
Sales
Sales
Sales price
Sales price
Berlin 17 II 2005
4
Total production, total sales, sales price in 2004
in
1000 t
PLN/t
10 000
240
8 000
200
160
6 000
120
4 000
80
2 000
40
Month
Production
Reserves at end of month
Sales
Sales price
Berlin 17 II 2005
5
Unit price, unit cost, result on unit sale [PLN/tone]
unit price 2003
unit cost 2004
unit price 2004
result on unit sale 2004
Items
2004
Unit price
result on unit sale 2003
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
167,8
165,2
166,7
173,0
178,0
179,4
182,1
184,1
185,6
186,6
187,5
XII
2003
Unit cost
147,2
145,9
144,9
146,7
148,8
151,1
152,5
153,5
153,5
154,0
154,5
Result on unit sale
20,65
19,28
21,87
26,27
28,37
28,29
29,63
30,58
32,07
32,67
32,96
Unit price
139,1
137,8
139,2
138,4
137,6
137,5
138,1
138,5
139,6
141,2
142,4
143,2
Unit cost
136,3
136,9
139,5
141,1
142,5
144,1
142,8
142,4
142,2
141,6
141,6
142,1
Result on unit sale
2,79
0,84
-0,38
-2,61
-4,98
-6,55
-4,72
-3,85
-2,54
-0,37
0,82
1,11
Berlin 17 II 2005
6
Cost structure
01.-11.2003
Item
Operating expenses
01.-11.2004
Dynamic
[th. PLN]
[%]
[th. PLN]
[%]
13 309 531
100,0
13 883 778
100,0
104,3
982 972
7,4
1 119 037
8,1
113,8
1 643 762
12,3
2 208 712
15,9
134,4
807 504
6,1
764 289
5,4
2 550 962
19,2
2 595 790
18,7
101,8
427 554
3,2
442 777
3,2
103,6
1.
Depreciation
2.
Consumption of
mat.
3.
Energy
4.
Ext. services
5.
Taxes and charges
6.
Payroll
5 027 825
37,8
4 950 193
35,7
98,5
7.
Wage rel.
contributions
1523 297
11,4
1 564 901
11,3
102,7
8.
Other costs
345 655
2,6
238 079
1,7
94,6
68,9
Source MINISTRY OF ECONOMY, LABOUR AND SOCIAL POLICY, Information about restructuring of the hard coal mining sector.
Warsaw, January 2005
Berlin 17 II 2005
7
Cost structure
11%
2%
8%
16%
5%
36%
19%
3%
8,1% - Depreciation
15,9% - Consumption of mat.
5,4% - Energy
18,7% - Ext. services
3,2% - Taxes and charges
35,7% - Payroll
11,3% - Wage rel. contributions
1,7% - Other costs
Berlin 17 II 2005
8
1. Introduction
mining sector
Berlin 17 II 2005
9
Organization of the hard coal mining sector (since 29.10.04)
• Kompania WĊglowa S.A. - 18 mines
• Katowicka Grupa Kapitaáowa - Katowicki olding
WĊglowy S.A. - 9 mines, of which 1 is the limited liability
company (100% stake held by KHW S.A.)
• JastrzĊbska Spóáka WĊglowa S.A. - 5 mines
• KWK Budryk S.A.
• LW Bogdanka S.A.
• ZGE Sobieski – Jaworzno II” Sp. z o.o. 50% stake
held by PKE S.A. and 50% stake held by NSW S.A.
• Siltech Sp. z o.o.: 100% private ownership
Production
Production entities
entities
•
•
•
•
•
Bytomska Spóáka WĊglowa S.A.
Rudzka Spóáka WĊglowa S.A.
Gliwicka Spóáka WĊglowa S.A.
NadwiĞlaĔska Spóáka WĊglowa S.A.
Rybnicka Spóáka WĊglowa S.A.
Non-production
Non-production entities
entities
coal
coal mining
mining sector
sector
Restructuring
Restructuring companies
companies
Trade
Trade companies
companies
• Spóáka Restrukturyzacji KopalĔ S.A.
• Bytomska Spóáka Restrukturyzacji KopalĔ
Sp. z o.o.: 100% stake held by SRK S.A.
• CZW WĊglozbyt S.A.
• WĊglokoks S.A
Berlin 17 II 2005
10
Kompania Wąglowa
JastrzĊbska
Spóáka
WĊglowa
Katowicki olding
WĊglowego S.A.
Seperate companies
Zakáad Górniczy „Piekary”
KWK „Bielszowice”
KWK „Polska Wirek”
KWK „Bolesáaw ĝmiaáy”
KWK „Makoszowy”
KWK „Szczygáowice”
KWK „Piast”
KWK „Rudyáowy-Anna”
KWK „Chwaáowice”
KWK „Bobrek-Centrum”
KWK „Halemba„
KWK „Pokój„
KWK „Knurów„
KWK „SoĞnica„
KWK „Brzeszcze-Silesia„
KWK „SoĞnica„
KWK „Zieowit„
KWK „Marcel„
KWK „Jankowice„
KWK "Borynia"
KWK "JastrzĊbie"
KWK "KrupiĔski"
KWK "Morcinek"
KWK"Moszczenica"
KWK "Pniówek"
KWK "Zofiówka".
KWK
KWK
KWK
KWK
KWK
KWK
KWK
KWK
KWK
KWK
KWK „Budryk”
LW Bogdanka S.A
Poáudniowy Koncern
WĊglowy (ZGE SobieskiJaworzno III Sp. z o.o.
ZGE Janina)
"Murcki"
"Kazimierz-Juliusz"
"Katowice"
"ĝląsk"
"Niwka-Modrzejów"
"Kleofas"
"Wujek"
"Wesoáa",
"Wieczorek"
"Staszic"
Berlin 17 II 2005
11
Contents
1. Introduction
mining sector
Berlin 17 II 2005
12
20 December 2004 - approval the privatisation
strategy of the coal mining sector by the Council of
Ministers which is integrated part of document
„Restructuring of the hard coal mining sector during the
period 2004-2006 and strategy for the period 20072010”
Berlin 17 II 2005
13
Key restructuring objectives
• Maintenance of the energy security of the country
• co-operation in improving the standard of energy
security of the European Union;
• Maintenance by mining enterprises of sustainable
profitability, economic effectiveness and competitive
advantage on the uniform market of the EU;
• Securing satisfactory level of financial liquidity and
creditworthiness in order to ensure sustained operation
and development of mining enterprises;
Source MINISTRY OF ECONOMY, LABOUR AND SOCIAL POLICY, Restructuring of the hard coal mining sector during the period
2004-2006 and strategy for the period 2007-2010, Warsaw, 27 April 2004.
Berlin 17 II 2005
14
Key restructuring objectives
• Balancing of funds so as to enable current payment of
liabilities, (in particular those due to public sector
creditors);
• Adjustment of production capacity to the local market
demand and economically viable exports to the uniform
EU market and elsewhere;
• Adjustment of employment to the actual production
needs, along with ensuring a greater productivity and
efficiency;
• Actions towards a rational cost structure;
• Privatisation of mining enterprises.
Source MINISTRY OF ECONOMY, LABOUR AND SOCIAL POLICY, Restructuring of the hard coal mining sector during the period
2004-2006 and strategy for the period 2007-2010, Warsaw, 27 April 2004.
Berlin 17 II 2005
15
Planned restructuring activities
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Reduction of production capacity and employment level
Organizational restructuring process
Privatization of the hard coal mining sector
Liability restructuring in 2004 - 2006
KW S.A. capital increase
Cost reduction efforts by mining companies
Investments in hard coal mining planned for 2004 – 2010
and sources of funds
8. Environment protection
Berlin 17 II 2005
16
1. Reduction of production capacity and employment level
I scenario – the base case scenario – target model
Reduction of production volume by 14 m tones
Reduction of employment by 25,5 thousand persons
II scenario – alternative variant
Reduction of production volume by 7.8 m tones
Reduction of employment by 19,5 thousand persons
Berlin 17 II 2005
17
first variant
No.
Mine
Production
capacity
(2003)
Net change of capacity in
years
2004
2005
2006
Production
capacity
(2006)
Reduction
/increase
of
capacity
in period
20032006
TOTAL SECTOR
102 600
-3 000
-6 200
-4 800
88 600
-14 000
1.
Katowicka Grupa
Kapitaáowa
19 900
-2 000
0
-100
17 800
-2 100
2.
JastrzĊbska Spóáka
WĊglowa S.A.
13 650
0
0
0
13 650
0
3.
Kopalnia WĊglowa S.A.
57 950
-3 200
-7 700
-4 700
42 350
-15 600
4.
Samodzielne Kopalnie
11 100
2 200
1 500
0
14 800
3 700
4.1
KWK Budryk S.A.
3 400
0
0
0
3 400
0
4.2
LW Bogdanka S.A.
4 850
350
0
0
5 200
350
4.3
ZGE Sobieski-Jaworzno
III Sp. z o.o.
2 850
200
0
0
3 050
200
4.4
ZGE Janina
4.5
Bolesáaw ĝmiaáy
1 650
0
0
1 650
1 650
1 500
0
1 500
1 500
Berlin 17 II 2005
18
alternative variant
No.
Mine
Production
capacity
2003
Net change of capacity in
years
2004
2005
2006
Production
capacity
2006
Reduction
/increase
of
capacity
in period
20032006
TOTAL SECTOR
102 600
-3 000
-2 900
-1 900
94 800
-7 800
1.
Katowicka Grupa
Kapitaáowa
19 900
-2 000
0
-100
17 800
-2 100
2.
WĊglowa S.A.
13 650
0
0
0
13 650
0
3.
Kompania WĊglowa
S.A.
57 950
-3 200
-4 400
-1 800
48 550
-9 400
4.
Samodzielne Kopalnie
11 100
2 200
1 500
0
14 800
3 700
4.1
KWK Budryk S.A.
3 400
0
0
0
3 400
0
4.2
LW Bogdanka S.A.
4 850
350
0
0
5 200
350
4.3
ZGE Sobieski-Jaworzno
III Sp. z o.o.
2 850
200
0
0
3 050
200
4.4
ZGE Janina
1 650
0
0
1 650
1 650
4.5
Bolesáaw ĝmiaáy
1 500
0
1 500
1 500
Berlin 17 II 2005
19
Schedule for hard coal mining sector privatization plan
Companies
Kompania
WĊglowa
Katowicki
olding
WĊglowy
JastrzĊbska
Spóáka
WĊglowa
S.A.
Planned activities
Date
1.
Ending of the essential restructuring activities
until 2006
2.
Choosing the right investment advisor
between III and IV
quarter of 2005
3.
Choosing the type of privatization
After obtain the results
of privatization advisor
analysis
1.
Privatization advisory – contract with A&E
Consult Sp. z o.o. and BAA Polska Sp. z o.o.
2.
Recommendation and decision on the
acceptance of the type of privatization
3.
Execution of privatization
1.
03.2005
2.
Obtain the results of privatization advisor
analysis
08.2005
3.
Beginning of the privatization process
12.2005
4.
Beginning of the privatization through the
stock market
23.02.2004
01.2005
02.2005-09.2005
Berlin 17 II 2005
2006
20
Schedule for hard coal mining sector privatization plan
Companies
Planned activities
Date
KWK „Budryk“
S.A.
1.
2.
Choosing the type of privatization
„WĊglokoks“
S.A.
1.
04.2004
2.
Obtain the results of privatization
advisor analysis
08.2005
3.
Execution of privatization
12.2005
4.
Beginning of the privatization through
the stock market
2006
Berlin 17 II 2005
21
Balance of liabilities and financial liquidity of the hard coal
industry
The primary reason for the drop in liabilities was the amortisation
of liabilities in December 2003, under the Law on Restructuring of
the Hard Coal Mining Sector, of 28 November 2003.
As on 30.12.2003
As on 30.12.2002
22846,9
15000
10000
2531,9
5000
25000
20315
20000
mln PLN
mln PLN
25000
0
20000
15000
10000
8641,2
2456,6
5000
6184,6
0
Total
liabilities
Receivables
Surplus of
liabilities
over
Receivables
Total
liabilities
Berlin 17 II 2005
Receivables
Surplus of
liabilities
over
Receivables
22
Amount of liabilities and receivables (2004)
Month
Receivables
Liabilities
Saldo
I
2 701,4
8 551,5
-5 850,2
II
2 778,6
8 483,4
-5 704,8
III
2 563,3
8 447,4
-5 884,2
IV
2 531,5
8 069,5
-5 538,0
V
2 410,6
7 796,5
-5 385,8
VI
2 320,3
7 584,3
-5 264,1
VII
2 211,4
7 338,5
-5 127,1
VIII
2 184,0
7 218,1
-5 034,1
IX
2 301.7
7 232.9
-4 931.3
X
2 268.6
7 121.1
-4 852.5
IX
2 196.2
7 172.6
-4 976.4
Berlin 17 II 2005
23
Amount of liabilities and receivables (2004)
mln. PLN
receivables
liabilities
saldo
Berlin 17 II 2005
24
Effects of environmental projects (thous. tones)
Kompania
WĊglowa
Katowicka Grupa
Kapitaáowa
Item
JastrzĊbska
Spóáka
WĊglowa S.A.
Year
2004
2010
2004
2010
2004
2010
1 030,7
593,8
57,4
36,3
86,5
40,8
Mining waste
generation - total
18 255,4
17 667,4
4 471,3
3 876,0
8 496,2
5 840,1
Utilisation of mining
waste on the surface
and underground total
17 880,4
17 547,4
4 511,3
3 926,0
7 579,9
4 319,1
Loads of chlorides and
sulphates discharged to
surface waters in
unused underground
waters
Berlin 17 II 2005
25
Public assistance
Between 2004 and 2010, the public assistance for the
hard coal mining sector will be available in the following
forms
1.
State budget subsidies towards restructuring
2.
Amortisation of liabilities
3.
Capital increase
4.
Extended liability repayment deadlines
5.
Repayment of liabilities in instalments
6.
Conversion of liabilities on stocks
Berlin 17 II 2005
26
Public assistance planned for the period 2004-2010 (in thousand)
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
1588,7
1528,8
1070,2
160,0
160,0
160,0
160,0
4827,8
Kompania WĊglowa S.A.
861,1
735,4
428,8
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
2025,4
Katowicka Capital Group
241,9
246,6
149,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
637,6
WĊglowa S.A.
49,2
25,0
6,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
80,3
Kopalnie- Spóáki
33,9
31,6
19,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
84,6
400,0
487,5
464,7
160,0
160,0
160,0
160,0
1992,3
2,5
2,5
2,5
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
7,5
1. Total budget subsidy
in which
GK SRK
Central Resuce Service
Berlin 17 II 2005
27
Contents
1. Introduction
mining sector
Berlin 17 II 2005
28
Forecast results of Kompania WĊglowa S.A. between 2005 and 2006;
target model
Details
No.
Unit
2003
results
0111.2004
results
2005
2006
1
Total production
Th. tones
51 393,1
49 074,5
48 376,7
42 425,0
2
Total sales
Th. tones
47 980,4
48 540,3
47 873,4
41 962,8
• domestic
Th. tones
35 649,8
34 635,0
36 002,0
31 565,5
• export
Th. tones
12 330,6
13 905,2
11 871,4
10 397,3
Th. tones
2 496,0
2046,7
1 616,2
1 304,3
People
82 335
73 376
57 504
52 708
2a
inc
2b
3
Stock level at the end of the period
4
Employment level at the end of the period
5
Employment decrease (y/y)
6
Average sales price
6a
inc
6b
People
x
-8 959
-15 872
-4 796
PLN/Tone
130,46
163,0
147,60
149,91
• domestic
PLN/Tone
143,46
155,0
156,70
159,76
• export
PLN/Tone
92,85
183,0
120,00
120,00
7
Unit cost of coal sold
PLN/Tone
137,52
192,82
138,94
139,68
8
Result on unit sale
PLN/Tone
-7,06
18,89
8,66
10,23
9
Revenues
Th. PLN
7 212 656,2
8 038 754,5
7 135 989,7
Th. PLN
6 259 359,8
7 066 080,9
6 290 578,4
Th. PLN
7 868 893,3
7 889 068,3
6 986 429,4
9a
10
10a
inc
Revenues on coal sale
Cost
inc
Costs on coal sale
Th. PLN
6 598 214,6
6 651 559,0
5 861 336,4
11
Financial result on sale
Th. PLN
-338 854,8
55 637
414 521,9
429 242,0
12
Gross financial result
Th. PLN
-687 875,9
601 226
569 664,2
765 538,3
13
Net financial result
Th. PLN
-687 875,9
369 213
467 124,6
627 741,4
14
Liabilities
Th. PLN
5 444 216,8
4 463 828
4 666 220,0
3 992 732,6
15
Long- and short-term receivables
Th. PLN
1 309 337,5
958 858
1 279 855,2
1 274 915,2
Berlin 17 II 2005
29
Unit costs
unit cost
[PLN/tew]
Kompania WĊglowa
192
190
188
186
184
182
180
178
176
190,9
188,4
185,5
182,9
(2003)42125,4
(2004) 44098,4
(2005) 38670,9
(2006) 34209,3
production [th. tew]
Berlin 17 II 2005
30
Unit costs
unit cost [PLN/tew]
Katowicka GK
202
200
198
196
194
192
190
188
186
184
199,8
197,3
192,6
190,2
(2003) 15442,5
(2004) 17384,4
(2005) 14102,6
(2006) 14297,5
Berlin 17 II 2005
31
Unit costs
unit cost [PLN/tew]
JastrzĊbska SW S.A.
230
220
219,6
214,2
210
218,4
200
190
193,5
180
(2003) 11184,5
(2004) 11341,3
(2005) 13105,8
(2006) 13112,5
Berlin 17 II 2005
32
Summary
• Under current prices and costs Polish coal is competitive
both as primary energy carrier as a final product
(electricity)
• Unclear influence of restructurisation and modernization
on final cost situation
• Change of fuel structure in Poland will lead to reduction
of domestic demand Æ higher export potential
Berlin 17 II 2005
33
Workshop on “Challenges and Perspectives of EU
Electricity-Enlargement”
17-18 February, 2005, Berlin
“Potential and institutional framework for renewables in the new
EU mener states”
by
Petra Opitz, German Energy Agency (dena)
The German Energy Agency (dena)
Shareholders:
Board of Directors:
50%
German Federal Government
Represented by:
• Federal Ministry of Economics and Labour
(BMWA)
• Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature
Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU)
• Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and
Housing (BMVBW)
50%
Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW group)
Wolfgang Clement (chairman)
Federal Minister of Economics and Labour
Hans W. Reich (assistant chairman)
Speaker of the Borad Kreditanstalt für
Wiederaufbau
Dr. Manfred Stolpe
Federal Minister of Transport, Building and
Housing
Dr. Tessen von Heydebreck
Board Member Deutsche Bank
Detlef Leinberger
Board Member Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau
Jürgen Trittin
Federal Minister of Environment, Nature
Conservation and Nuclear Safety
Head:
Stephan Kohler
The Region covered
Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, Poland,
Czech Republic,
Slovakia, Hungary,
Slovenia
Bulgaria and Romania
as accession countries
State of the art in CEE
Common features:
- overcapacity for energy production
- dependency on energy imports
- obsolete power plants
- increasing energy prices (below market prices before start
of reform
- huge potential for energy efficiency
- energy consumption is expected to increase, because of
energy consumption per capita lower then EU-15 average
Net Energy Imports by Country (Mtoe)*
2002
Bulgaria
9,02
Romania
8,79
Czech Rep.
11,07
14,69
Hungary
1,5
Estonia
Latvia
2,45
3,59
Lithuania
Poland
10,32
Slovakia
11,99
3,51
Slovenia
0
5
10
15
20
* Sources: IEA; Key Energy Statistics, 2004
The Energy Efficiency Situation
Energy intensity
TPES/GDP (toe/1000 95 US$ PPP)
0,80
Russia
0,70
Estonia
0,60
Lithuania
0,50
Lativa
0,40
Poland
0,30
EU-15
0,20
Slovak Rep.
0,10
Czech Rep.
0,00
1995
1999
2000
2001
Hungary
* Sources: IEA; Energy Balances 1999-2000, 2002; IEA; Key World Energy Statistics, 2003
Per Capita Consumption of Electricity (kWh/capita)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Slovenia
Slovakia
Poland
Lithuania
Latvia
Estonia
1990
2002
Hungary
Czech Rep.
Romania
Bulgaria
EU-15
Data for SLO, Lt, EST of 1994
Renewables - Traditional energy for many countries but mostly
for heat
Estonia – 90% of produced firewood used in households, 40%
of the country is covered by forest
Latvia – inclusive big Hydropower RES almost 52% of
electricity generated
Lithuania – small hydropower has been reconstructed, 120 MW
heat boilers on waste wood(wood chips
Czech Republic – 50% of fuel wood and wood waste potential
already used
Hungary – largest geothermal reserves in E-Europe, 11 PJ
used for direct heat and balneology
Slovenia – firewood used in rural houses + farms
Potential for RES in CEE - Some Examples
Lithuania: wind 500 MW (technical) – no turbine so far, little interest
Slovenia: bio-energy heat 27.9 PJ/a; bio-gas 25.4 PJ/a; bio-fuels
10.7 PJ/a – no energy crops so far; geothermal potential 19.6 PJ/a
– 103 MW installed capacity heat so far
Czech Republic: Potential
Utilisation 2000
Wind: 35 TWh/a (tp); 2-6.2 TWh/a (ep)
Wood:
6.825 MW
32.800 PJ/a
16.200 PJ/a
6.050 PJ/a
39 PJ/a
Straw oil plants 9.800 PJ/a
170 PJ/a
Cereal straw:
Energy plants 12.000 PJ/a
on marginal land
0
Poland: wind (ep) Baltic Coast 3.000 MW – 28 MW installed
Structure of Gross Electricity Generation by Fuel 2002
90%
0,2
0
9
1,8
100%
17
23
39
61,3
55,6
29,4
50
34
4
1
21
10
80
14,1
14,1
50%
90
8,4
40%
25
5,5
0,5
10
38
5
12
29,4
70%
4
0,8
80%
60%
0
28
8,4
0
2
1
65
9
20%
36
2
34,2
38,1
38,1
40
26
25
11
10%
16,4
7,2
0
0%
Slovenia Slovakia
Coal
7
8
30%
Oil
Poland
Natural gas
Lithuania
3,5
1
Latvia
Nuclear
Estonia Hungary
Hydro
Czech
Rep.
Romania Bulgaria
Oil shales
EU-15
Harmonization with EU regulation since May 2004
¾
Legal framework was developed but rather slow
pace of reform concerning energy efficiency and
renewable energies
¾
National indicative targets are implemented
¾
Instruments to achieve targets, however, differ
widely
¾
Systematic approach is lacking in many countries
National indicative RES- Electricity Targets 2010
R E S -E %
in 1 9 9 7
R E S -E %
2010
R E S -E %
in 1 9 9 7
R E S -E %
2010
0 .0 5
6 .0
A u s tr ia
3 9 ,0 5
78
C zech
R e p u b lic
3 .8
8 .0
B e lg iu m
0 ,8 6
6
E s to n ia
0 .2
5 .1
D enm ark
3 ,2 1
29
0.
3 .6
F in la n d
1 9 ,0 3
3 1 ,5
C yprus
H ungary
4 2 .4
4 9 .3
F rance
66
21
L ith u a n ia
3 .3
7 .0
G erm any
2 4 ,9 1
1 2 ,5
M a lta
0 .0
5 .0
G reece
3 ,9 4
2 0 ,1
P o la n d
1 .6
7 .5
Ir e la n d
0 ,8 4
1 3 ,2
S lo v a k ia
1 7 .9
3 1 .0
I ta ly
4 6 ,4 6
25
S lo v e n ia
2 9 .9
3 3 .6
L uxem bourg
0 ,1 4
5 ,7
N e th e r la n d s
3 ,4 5
9
L a tv ia
E U 25
Source: A. Frogatt, 2004
1 2 .9
2 1 .0
P o r tu g a l
1 4 ,3
39
S p a in
3 7 ,1 5
2 9 ,4
Sw eden
7 2 ,0 3
60
UK
7 ,0 4
10
Instruments and incentives for RES
Country
Slovenia
Slovakia
Poland
Lithuania
Latvia
Estonia
Hungary
Czech
Republic
Bulgaria
Romania
Feed-in tariffs Purchase Investment Green
Quota
obligation subsidies certificates system
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Tender
system
X
X
X
X
proposed
proposed
X
X
Current situation concerning incentives for RES in
CEE
Main focus on „internal“ factors:
- job creation (s)
- Changes in agricultural policy (s)
- Modernisation (w)
- Energy security (w)
- social welfare (w)
Major “external” factor: EU membership (s)
X
Incentives for RES from the Kyoto Protocol?
Change in GHG emissions
(1990 – 2002)
Reduction targets
(2008/2012 to base year)
Estonia
- 55.2%
- 8%
Latvia
- 62.8%
- 8%
Lithuania
- 65.7 %
- 8%
Poland (2001)
- 32.2%
- 6%
Czech Rep.
- 24.9%
- 8%
Slovakia
- 28.4%
- 8%
Slovenia
- 1.1%
- 8%
Slovenia might be the only potential buyer of CO2-certificates among CEE
Barriers for RES - Inheritance of the former system
Most countries – various types of feed-in laws or other support
schemes
but no clear signals for long- term investment guarantees
¾
Overcapacities for power generation
¾
Indigenous fuels – oil shale in Estonia, coal in Poland
- lower price level, employment aspects
- strong lobbyism
¾
Huge potential in energy saving, to a certain part more cost
effective to address
¾
Relatively low energy prices - still some subsidies in place
because of social reasons
Conclusions
¾
Incentives not sufficient at present and medium time
What could be done in order to overcome the barriers?
¾
Focus on priority RES markets – biomass key technology for
many CEE
¾
Increasing stakeholder consensus
¾
Orientation on the community level – local interest, small scale
projects, community ownership
¾
Financing - Integration into national strategies would enable to
use EU structural funds
Thank you for your attention!
Dr. Petra Opitz
German Energy Agency, Berlin
[email protected]
www.deutsche-energie-agentur.de
DIW – BMWA WORKSHOP
PERSPECTIVES AND CHALLENGES OF
EU ELECTRICITY MARKET ENLARGEMENT.
ELECTRICITY SECTOR IN POLAND. HOW FAR TO
PANEUROPEAN ENERGY MARKET?
MACIEJ OLEJNICZAK, vice-president PSE-ELECTRA SA
BERLIN, FEBRUARY 17-18, 2005
PSE-ELECTRA
What we learnt about electricity market?
1.
2.
3.
Deregulation experience is still young and no
electricity market can yet call itself fully successful,
No one has a monopoly of expertise in deregulated
electricity market – only collecting knowledge from
many sources we can achieve real understanding
which is, based on research and experience,
Each market can learn from each other’s
experience, ideas, researches and understanding
but the real market experts come from the one
particular market,
Source: Energyforum Global Report 2003/2004
PSE-ELECTRA
Polish energy companies joint EU market
1. Accession drives market competition and economy
growth, increases awareness of customers, stipulates
sector restructuring and privatisation.
2. Joining developed energy market requires reconstruction
of the local companies including:
• Introduction of more aggressive market strategies,
• Extensive personnel training,
• Development of modern and sophisticated IT
systems,
• Designing a risk managment system,
• Acquisition of energy production assets and/or signing
of power supply contracts.
3. Competence,
competitiness,
alliances,
financial
resources, high financial standing and creativity became
factors to market success.
PSE-ELECTRA
Electricity market – challenge for participants; follow advice
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Understand energy market economy, its legal framework
and customs
Learn operation procedures of balancing market and
power exchanges study, principles of contracts (EFET,
bilateral, long term, OTC)
Know strategies of main players and competitors
Follow risk management systems and take risk limiting
decisions
Create pricing and portfolio management policies,
Locate market information sources
PSE-ELECTRA
Electricity market – end users’ expectations
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
High supply security,
Low cost of energy and transactions,
No imbalance stress,
Sufficient market liquidity, impartiality of indexes,
predictability of price changes,
Flexibility, speed and responsibility in market
undertakings of the market partner,
Simplicity of solutions and procedures applied at
the market,
Transparency in operators’ activities,
International trade without barriers.
PSE-ELECTRA
Market Reform Agenda
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Promoting of competition in supply
Setting efficient regulatory authorities,
Supervising grid companies,
Financing of grid investments,
Opening pan European elektricity market,
Designing sustaiable energy market, testing long term
balance and security
Supporting renewable energy production but also peak
energy storage
Reduction of grid constraints to provide market liquidity.
PSE-ELECTRA
Transmission capacity auctions in Central Europe
1.
2.
3.
4.
ETSO’s CBT mechanism opens all borders to traders and
end users but transmission capacity prices have grown
high,
Annual and monthly auctions provide access right for
energy traders. PSE-OPERATOR introduced training
sesions in 2004; area coordinated auctions for January
and 2005announced by German, Czech and Polish
Operators.
Daily capacity auctions necessery to help operators to
handle energy delivery contracts and allow capacity
netting (expected March/April 2005).
Money made by the grid companies not seen in
investments on the borders so constraints remain as they
were since beginning of auctions in 2000.
PSE-ELECTRA
Action neccesary to extend market area
1.
2.
3.
4.
New line construction to increase crossborder
transmission capacities,
Closer monitoring of the crossborder capacity auctions
by regulators,
Introduction of more sophisticated tools for cross border
capacity constraints handling (counter trade, creation of
price zones, redispatching),
Extension of areas covered by the strongest power
exchanges with their involvement in crossborder capacity
reservations (including day ahead trade).
PSE-ELECTRA
Market reform effect on TSO and traders
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Operators not prepared to handle big energy flows over
long distance and manage network congestion
Operators tend to limit their risk decreasing cross border
capacities,
Wind power production contribute to reliability of power
system,
Lack of transparency of TSO operations,
Not all operators prepared for liberalized market.
PSE-ELECTRA
POLISH ENERGY SECTOR IN BRIEF
18 OCT 1995 – START OF SYNCHRONIOUS OPERATION: CENTREL
SYSTEM CONNECTED TO UCPTE SYSTEM
10 APRIL 1997 – ENERGY LAW PASSED (UPDATED: APRIL 2004)
MAY 2001 – TSO JOINTS UCTE
1 JULY 2002 – REGULATORY AUTHORITY ESTABLISHED
1 MAY 2004 – POLAND’s ACCESION TO EU. EU LAW, INCLUDING
DIRECTIVES, IN FORCE IN POLAND
1 JULY 2004 - SYSTEM OPERATOR BECAME A SEPARATE COMPANY –
PSE-OPERATOR SA
1 JULY 2004 – POLAND JOINTS ETSO CBT SYSTEM
JANUARY 2005 – COORDINATED AUCTIONING OF CROSS BORDER
CAPACITY STARTED
STATISTICS (2003):
TOTAL PRODUCTION:
144 TWh
SOLD TO THE GRID:
130 TWh
SALES TO TARIFF ENDUSERS:
95 TWh
SALES TO TPA ENDUSERS:
1 TWh
NUMBER OF END USERS:
15,5 MIO
EXPORT:
13,04 TWh
IMPORT:
2,11 TWh
PSE-ELECTRA
POLISH ENERGY TRADERS 2003 (TWh)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
ELECTRABEL
6,5
POLSKA ENERGIA
5,2
PSE ELECTRA
4
ELNORD
4
ELEKTRIM VOLT
3
EON POLSKA
1,3
ELBIS, EGL POLSKA, POLENERGIA, EVEREN,
APT POLSKA,BH HALASIK
up to 1 TWh
(also; PSE, DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES AND
PRODUCERS)
Source: TOE
PSE-ELECTRA
PRODUCERS AND ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION
IN POLAND (2003)
POWER PLANT/
GROUP
BOT
PAK
PKE
BEŁCHATÓW (L)
TURÓW (L)
OPOLE (HC)
PĄTNÓW (L)
ADAMÓW (L)
KONIN (L)
JAWORZNO 3 (HC)
ŁAGISZA (HC)
SIERSZA (HC)
ŁAZISKA (HC)
HALEMBA (HC)
CHPs
PRODUCTION TWh
MARKET
SHARE %
43,3
30
13,1
9
25
17
ELECTRABEL
(HC)
7,3
5
KOZIENICE
(HC)
11,1
7,7
RYBNIK
(HC)
9,7
6,7
DOLNA ODRA
(HC)
8,4
5,8
OSTROŁĉKA
(HC)
2,1
1,5
CHPs
(HC)
24
16,6
TOTAL
PSE-ELECTRA
GROUP MEMBERS
(COAL)
144
NEW DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES (2004)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
COMPANY
No OF OLD
COMPANIES
END USERS
%
DISTRIBUTORS
SALES %
LOCATION IN
POLAND
L–6
6
24,5
22,5
EASTERN
ENERGA
8
17
21
NOTHERN
ENION
5
14,5
19
SOUTHERN
ENEA
5
14,5
18
ENERGIAPRO
5
10,5
13
ŁÓDħ
2
7
8
CENTRAL
GZE
(VATTENFALL)
1
7
10,5
SOUTHERN
STOEN (RWE)
1
5
7
CENTRAL
NORTHWESTERN
SOUTHWESTERN
PSE-ELECTRA
AUCTIONS RES ULTS (PS E/CEPS -> VET) 2001
2001
To tal c apac ity [MW]
700
700
25 017,00
2,86
January
425
1125
2 530,00
3,40
Fe bruary
425
1125
2 562,00
3,81
Marc h
425
1125
761,00
1,02
April
475
1175
533,00
0,74
May
475
1175
766,00
1,03
June
475
1175
1 087,00
1,51
July
525
1225
1 123,00
1,51
Aug us t
525
1225
818,00
1,10
S e pte mbe r
525
1225
1 123,00
1,56
Oc to be r
500
1200
1 550,00
2,08
No ve mbe r
550
1250
1 856,00
2,58
De c e mbe r
400
1100
1 835,00
2,47
Annual 2001
PSE-ELECTRA
Auc tio ns pric e
[EUR/MW]
Pric e o f:
Allo c ate d c apac ity
[MW]
De live ry pe rio d
bas e lo ad 7 days
2002
Price o f:
De liv e ry pe rio d
Annual 2002
Alloc ate d c apacity [MW]
To tal capac ity [MW]
774
Auc tions price
[EUR/MW]
bas e load 7 days
22 688,00
2,59
25 555,00
2,92
924
Annual 2002
150
January
389
1313
6 043,00
8,12
Fe bruary
389
1313
2 083,00
3,10
March
90
1014
1 488,00
2,00
April
140
1064
1 513,00
2,10
May
389
1313
751,00
1,01
June
489
1413
731,00
1,02
July
489
1413
502,00
0,67
Aug us t
339
1263
119,00
0,16
S e pte mbe r
539
1463
1 233,00
1,71
0
924
0,00
0,00
No ve mbe r
539
1463
1 346,00
1,87
De ce mbe r
335
1259
1 432,00
1,92
Oc tobe r
PSE-ELECTRA
AUCTIONS RES ULTS (PS E/CEPS -> VET) 2 00 3
2 00 3
Pric e o f:
Allo c ate d c a pa c ity
[MW]
To tal c a pa c ity
[MW]
Au c tio n s p ric e
[EUR/MW]
Ann ua l
80 0
80 0
26 50 9,08
3,03
J an ua ry
25 0
1 05 0
1 52 1,8 2
2,05
Fe b ru ary
39 0
1 19 0
1 14 2,4 0
1,70
Marc h
32 0
1 12 0
1 22 2,2 2
1,64
April
55 0
1 35 0
6 60 ,00
0,92
May
42 5
1 22 5
1 20 0,0 0
1,61
J un e
37 5
1 17 5
1 44 5,0 0
2,01
J uly
47 0
1 27 0
1 80 2,0 2
2,42
Aug us t
50 0
1 30 0
8 34 ,00
1,12
S e p te mb e r
45 0
1 25 0
2 19 4,5 6
3,05
Oc to b e r
45 0
1 25 0
2 76 8,0 0
3,72
No v e mb e r
55 0
1 35 0
2 39 7,6 0
3,33
De c e mb e r
40 0
1 20 0
3 75 0,0 0
5,04
De liv e ry pe rio d
PSE-ELECTRA
b as e lo a d 7 d ay s
2004
Price o f:
Allocate d capacity [MW]
To tal capacity [MW]
Auctio ns price
[EUR/MW]
bas e load 7 days
Annual
800
800
36 498,56
4,16
January
400
1200
4 397,93
5,91
Fe bruary
350
1150
5 046,00
7,24
March
300
1100
8 675,00
11,66
April
300
1100
7 179,00
9,97
May
300
1100
7 893,00
10,61
June
350
1150
7 210,00
10,01
July
400
1200
3 355,00
4,51
Augus t
350
1150
2 520,00
3,39
S e pte mbe r
300
1100
4 220,00
5,86
Octo be r
300
1100
5 446,50
7,33
Nove mbe r
300
1100
4 360,00
6,06
De ce mbe r
247
1047
5 033,00
6,76
De live ry pe riod
PSE-ELECTRA
AUCTIONS RES ULTS (PS E-O + CEPS -> VET) 2 0 0 5
De liv e ry
pe rio d
Allo c ate d c apac ity
[MW]
480
320
120
from CE P S 178
from P S E -O 155
from CE P S 136
from P S E -O 95
from CE P S 55
fro m P S E-O
Annual 2005
800
fro m CEP S
from P S E -O
January 2005
Fe bruary 2005
Marc h 2005
To tal allo c ate d c apac ity To tal allo c ate d
PS E-O+CEPS ->VE-T
c apac ity fo r
[MW]
mo nth [MW]
298
1098
291
1091
150
950
Auc tio ns pric e
[EUR/MW]
Pric e o f
bas e lo ad 7 days
[EUR/MW]
101 186,63
53 260,80
9 874,03
9 874,03
7 392,00
7 392,00
6 401,10
6 401,10
11,55
6,08
13,27
13,27
11,00
11,00
8,60
8,60
AUCTIONS RES ULTS (CEPS -> E.ON) 2 0 0 5
De liv e ry
pe rio d
Allo c ate d c apac ity [MW]
To tal allo c ate d
c apac ity fo r
mo nth [MW]
Auc tio ns pric e
[EUR/MW]
Pric e o f
bas e lo ad 7 days
[EUR/MW]
750
148
150
0
750
898
900
750
58 674,48
6 696,00
7 056,01
0,00
6,70
9,00
10,50
0,00
Annual 2005
January 2005
Fe bruary 2005
Marc h 2005
TOTAL IMPORT TO GERMANY (PS E-O + CEPS -> VE-T + E.ON)
De liv e ry
pe rio d
Annual 2005
January 2005
Fe bruary 2005
Marc h 2005
Allo c ate d c apac ity [MW]
PS E-O ->VET
CEPS -> VE-T
CEPS -> E.ON
480
120
155
95
320
178
136
55
750
148
150
0
To tal c apac ity
[MW]
To tal allo c ate d
c apac ity fo r
mo nth [MW]
1550
446
1996
441
150
1991
1700
- INFORMATION ON CAPACITY AS PUBLIS HED BY ETS O
- P OLAND -> CZECH REP UB LIC + GERMANY + S LOVAK 2000 MW (value s pro vide d by P o land)
- P OLAND -> GERMANY 1100 MW (value s pro vide d by Ge rmany)
- CZECH REP UB LIC -> GERMANY 2300 MW ( value s pro vide d by Ge rmany and Cz e c h Re public )
PSE-ELECTRA
PKE SA
POŁUDNIOWY KONCERN
ENERGETYCZNY
Spółka Akcyjna
The Southern Poland
Power Company
Stanisław Tokarski
Jerzy Janikowski
ul. Lwowska 23
40-389 Katowice
Poland
e-mail: [email protected]
http://www.pke.pl
1st of June 2000 - PKE entered the business register
El. Łaziska
Elektrownia
Jaworzno III
Elektrociepłownia
Katowice
El. Łagisza
El. Blachownia .
ZEC Bielsko Biała
El. Siersza
El. Halemba
Total capacity of PKE amounts
5052,7 MWe and 2491,7 MWt
PKE is the second power generator in
Poland in the scope of production
value and capacity.
The company’s share in the national
production of electrical energy is
around 17% and around 16% in heat
production for the local market.
Performance of PKE in year
2003
Production
• Electrical energy
18 821 926 MWh
• Heat
12 299 959 GJ
Revenue
Net profit
~1 000 000 000 EUR
over 20 000 000 EUR
Net profit 2004 forecast ~ 55 000 000 EUR
• The fuel for all power plants of PKE is
coal
• Annual coal consumption at PKE
amounts to 11 000 000 t
Customers
•
•
•
•
•
PSE SA
Distributors
Energy exchange
Balancing market
Authorised consumers
38,4%
28,8%
0,3%
18,2%
14,3%
The location in South Poland gives
PKE good access to fuel suppliers
and proximity to markets in the whole
Silesian and neighbouring regions
and export markets.
Installed capacity of PKE – forecast if nothing is done
6200
5200
5053
55 MW
4953
460 MW
El. Blachownia
bl.TG4
4898
- El. Łagisza bl. 3,4
- El. Siersza bl.4
- El. Halemba bl.2,3
4438
240 MW
530 MW
4147
- El. Siersza bl.3,6
- El. Jaworzno II TG 1
- El. Łagisza bl. 1,2,5
- El. Siersza bl.5
4200
3617
100 MW
3377
291,2 MW
El. Jaworzno II
TG4,TG6
- El. Blachownia TG1,TG2
- ZEC Bielsko-Biala EC1
- El. Halemba bl. 1,4
3200
2740 MW
- El. Jaworzno III - bl. 1,2,3,4,5,6
- El. Łaziska - bl.1,2, 9 -12
- El. Łagisza - bl. 6,7
2200
BLOKI POZOSTAJĄCE W
EKSPLOATACJI PO ROKU 2017
- EC Katowice bl.1
- Jaworzno II bl. 2,3
- El. Siersza bl. 1,2
- EC2 Bielsko bl.1
1200
637
200
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
The development strategy of the company
relies on acquiring further production
plants and on capital links with the mining
industry and with distribution companies.
•
•
•
•
The goal of PKE is ...
to be a middle size power company and
coal producer
to be one of the largest power generator in
Poland
to be an energy trader in Poland and in
neighbouring regions
to be a middle size player on the european
energy market
The PKE Capital Group consists of 42
entities in which the PKE represents a
diverse state of ownership: in ten
subsidiaries PKE has over 50% vote in
the General Meeting of Shareholders; in
18 associated companies PKE has 20%
- 50% vote; in 14 other companies it
holds less then 20% of the shares.
In 2003 the subsidiaries and associated
companies of the Capital Group
achieved total turnover of 362 million
EUR, which constitutes ca. 40% of the
PKE’s incomes.
PKE has formed Południowy Koncern
WĊglowy S.A. (The Southern Poland Mining
Company) on the 25th of January, 2005. The
company is taking over property and staff of
two mining companies, which are in the
Capital Group of PKE: ZGE „Sobieski
Jaworzno III” and ZGE „Janina” until July.
PKE
Power and heat generation
Energy trading
Distribution of electrical energy
Heat distribution
Coal production
The challenge is EU
• 18.10.1995. – Synchronisation of Polish
transmission system with the system of
UCPTE (at present UCTE)
• 10.04.1997. – The Energy Law
• 01.05.2004. - Poland is a Member State
of European Union
The most important for the
power industry EU Directives
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Directive 2003/54/EC (IEM)
Directive 96/61/EC (IPPC)
Directive 2001/80/EC (LCP)
Directive 2001/81/EC (NEC)
Directive 2001/77/EC (RES)
Directive 2003/87/EC (GHG)
Directive 2004/8/EC (CHP)
EU 15
Source: European Commission consultation paper TOWARDS A STRATEGY FOR THE
SECURITY OF ENERGY SUPPLY: THE ROLE OF SOLID FUELS
Accession Countries
Source: European Commission consultation paper TOWARDS A STRATEGY FOR THE
SECURITY OF ENERGY SUPPLY: THE ROLE OF SOLID FUELS
POLAND
100%
14 000
Installed capacity MWe
80%
10 000
70%
60%
8 000
50%
6 000
40%
30%
4 000
20%
2 000
10%
0
0%
1950-1960 1961-1970 1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2002
MWe
rest
%
Percentage of capacity (%)
90%
12 000
Primary energy sources in electrical
energy production in Poland (2003)
Coal
62%
Lignite
34%
RES
1%
Pumped
storage
1%
Gas
2%
Polish power system
• Total capacity: 32 506 MW
• Production of electrical energy:
143 318 GWh
• Number of significant generation
competitors: 7
PKE and competitors from EU
VATENFALL
(VEAG)
EC
WybrzeĪe
EC
EC
Warszawskie
Zielona Góra
Kogeneracja
STOEN
Wrocław
GZE
El
Gliwice
Rybnik
EC
Kraków
EdF
Vattenfall
RWE
Połaniec
Tractebel
PKE SA
The Hungarian electricity
sector: challenges and
opportunities
Varró László
The views expressed in the
presentation are those of the
author
• Some stylised facts
• Investment opportunities
• Regional developments
2005. 02. 21.
www.eh.gov.hu
3
Low energy taxes, very little
implicit subsidy issue
20
10
0
Hunga ry
2005. 02. 21.
Ge rma ny
www.eh.gov.hu
4
Some stylised facts:
generation
•
•
•
•
•
Net importer, significant transit
Balanced, (relatively) modern portfolio
No unresolved environmental issues
Feasible privatisation complete
No anti-nuclear lobby
2005. 02. 21.
www.eh.gov.hu
5
Wholesale „market”
•
•
•
•
Privatisation based on PPAs
Dual market, single buyer
Issues: Liquidity, transparency, state aid
Yet: a very high degree of supplier switching (25%)
2005. 02. 21.
www.eh.gov.hu
6
Individual power plant prices,
Euro/MWh
60
50
40
30
55,56
48,15
48,15
20
10
51,85
44,44
24,07
0
P a ks i
Duna me nti AES Tis za i
Atome rĘmĦ ErĘmĦ Rt. ErĘmĦ Rt.
Rt.
2005. 02. 21.
Vé rte s
ErĘmĦ Rt.
Má tra i
ErĘmĦ Rt.
Cs e pe li
ErĘmĦ Rt.
www.eh.gov.hu
7
Energy flow in the dual market
Public
Service
Generators
Import-export
Free
Generators
2004- no price
regulation
Regulated
energy market
Public Service
Wholesaler
Regulated
price
Public Service
Supplier (s)
Energy
Trader (s)
Regulated
price
2005. 02. 21.
„captive”
Customers
Eligible
www.eh.gov.hu Customers
8
Network
•
•
•
•
Strong capacity, low quality
Huge efficiency gains since privatisation
„Upgrade” investment
New, very generous network regulation from 2005
(DRV 2,5 billion euro)
• Increasing social value of reliability
2005. 02. 21.
www.eh.gov.hu
9
Regional issues
•
•
•
•
Too small individual markets
Explicit auctions as first step
Vision: CentrelPool
Regulatory roundtable
2005. 02. 21.
www.eh.gov.hu
10
UCTE expansion: from the „corner”
to the hub
2005. 02. 21.
www.eh.gov.hu
11
New generation
•
•
•
•
•
Probably not needed before 2010
Private investment decision
Investment incentives, capacity markets?
Wholesale market reform
Regional focus
2005. 02. 21.
www.eh.gov.hu
12
Renewables and CHP
•
•
•
•
•
Compulsory feed system
Balancing market
Basis: avoided social costs
Strong political support
Significant growth recently (biomass, CHP, wind)
2005. 02. 21.
www.eh.gov.hu
13
Varró László
[email protected]
2005. 02. 21.
www.eh.gov.hu
14
STATUS OF POWER SECTOR
IN LITHUANIA
1
Dr. Anzelmas Baþauskas
Lietuvos Energija AB, Lithuania
Workshop
Challenges and Perspectives of EU ElectricityEnlargement
Berlin, February 17-18, 2005
LITHUANIA
2
• Population – 3.44 million;
• Area – 65.3 thousand square km;
• In the Middle Ages - the largest kingdom in Eastern
Europe;
• Lithuania lost the independence in the end of the eighteen
century;
• Lithuania restored the independence in 1918;
• The USSR occupied Lithuania in 1940;
• Lithuania once again restored the Independence in 1990;
• Lithuania became the member of the EU in 2004.
THE STRUCTURE OF POWER SECTOR
IN LITHUANIA
3
PRODUCTION:
•3 production companies;
•3 CHPs owned by district heating companies;
• Few private mini HPP;
• Few industrial power plants.
DISTRIBUTION:
•Three distribution companies (one private).
TRANSMISSON:
• One Transmission System Operator company – Lietuvos
Energija AB.
STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTION
IN LITHUANIA, 2004
4
Type of producers
Installed
capacity (MW)
Production
(TWh)
Nuclear
2600 (41.5%)
15.10 (78.5%)
Thermal
1800 (28.8%)
0.74 (3.9%)
CHP
733 (11.7%)
2.11 (11.0%)
Hydro
100.8 (1.6%)
0.36 (1.9%)
Pumped Storage
900 (14.4%)
0.52 (2.7%)
Mini hydro
16 (0.3%)
0.07 (0.3%)
Industrial
108.8 (1.7%)
0.34(1.7%)
6258.6 (100%)
19.24 (100%)
Total
MARKET PLAYERS
IN LITHUANIA, 2004
•
•
•
•
5
8 wholesalers;
3 public suppliers;
17 independent suppliers;
Lietuvos Energija AB – TSO, MO
Exporter/Importer.
ELECTRICITY TRADE
IN LITHUANIA, 2004
• Bilateral contracts (70%);
• At auction (12.64%);
• Public service obligations (17.36%).
6
PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION OF
ELECTRICITY IN LITHUANIA, TWh
7
30
25
20
Production
Consumption
15
10
5
0
1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2004
EXPORT OF ELECTRICITY, TWh
8
4,5
4
3,5
Belarus
Russia
Latvia
Estonia
Poland
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
CLOSURE OF
THE IGNALINA NPP
9
• The closure of Unit I was scheduled in 2004, Unit II - in 2009;
• The Ignalina NPP produces more than 75% of electricity output in
Lithuania;
• The Ignalina NPP can be substituted by the Lithuanian PP, but
this power plant has to be upgraded to meet environmental
requirements;
• Study on Nuclear Energy Perspectives in Lithuania;
• Analysis of Energy Supply Options and Security of Supply in the
Baltic Countries.
CLOSURE OF THE
IGNALINA NPP
10
• Unit I was shut down on December 31, 2004;
• The new Government’s Program states that Lithuania will be a
nuclear country
• The results of the study about the future of nuclear energy in
Lithuania were presented at Franco-Lithuania Energy Seminar on
January 14, 2005.
Capacity balance forecast for Lithuania 2002-2012
11
6000
5000
MW
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Existing capacities
Peak load forecast
Additional capacities
Peak load with reserve margin
12
NEW INTERCONNECTIONS
• Poland – Lithuania
• Estonia – Finland
• Sweden -Lithuania
13
Michalak
INTERCONNECTION
LITHUANIA - POLAND
14
• The interconnection – a gate of the Baltic Electricity Market to the
EU Market;
• The EU designated the Lithuania – Poland power link as a priority
project which is eligible for financial support - “quick start”
project;
• The 1000 MW 400 kV double- circuit power line with a back-toback converter, total cost – EUR434m;
• If the project is stalled beyond 2009, the reliability of supply will
decrease in the Baltic states.
INTERCONNECTION ESTONIA –FINLAND
(Estlink)
15
•
•
•
•
Capacity 350 MW;
Cost of the project - 110 million;
Projected commissioning – 2006;
On July 7, 2004 three Baltic power companies and two
Finish companies signed the agreement;
• Lietuvos Energija has control over 25% of shares.
16
SWINDLIT PROJECT
• Sweden companies SEK, SwedPower, Airicole proposed to take
part in the new project to link-up the offshore wind farm at the
Baltic sea with Swedish and Lithuanian grids.
• The pre-feasibility study is finalized and a joint application to the
EU for funding of the feasibility study is being drafted.
• Capacity – about 700 MW;
• Cost of the project (excluding the wind farm) – about 400m.
17
LIETUVOS ENERGIJA AB owns:
•110-330 kV transmission grid;
•The Kaunas HPP (101 MW) and the Kruonis PSP (900 MW);
•The control centre of the Lithuanian power system;
•The telecommunications and information system.
18
FUNCTIONS OF LIETUVOS ENERGIJA AB
•
•
•
•
Maintenance and Development of Transmission System;
System Operation;
Market Operation;
Export/Import.
Electricity end-use efficiency in buildings in
New Member States and Candidate Countries
Bogdan Atanasiu, Paolo Bertoldi
European Commission, DG JRC
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
1
AIM AND OBJECTIVES
Started in mid-2004
The aim is to develop a bottom-up end-use electricity consumption
model for the building sector
Geographical coverage: New EU MS, Bulgaria, Romania and
Turkey; we have already expanded to the Western Balkans.
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
2
ENERGY SECTORS TO SURVEY
TERTIARY AND RESIDENTIAL SECTORS
Why? - 22% of Kyoto Protocol commitment…
EU15 saving potential up to 2010
Final energy consumption [Mtoe, 1998]
500
450
- 22%
400
350
BUT IN NEW
MEMBER
STATES AND
CANDIDATE
COUNTRIES???
- 14%
300
- 17%
250
200
150
100
50
0
industry
transport
tertiary+residential
Source: MURE model, EC 2003
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
3
ENERGY SECTORS TO SURVEY
TERTIARY AND RESIDENTIAL SECTORS
Aim: To evaluate the electricity saving potential in the tertiary
and residential sectors of New MSs and CCs and propose
ways to achieve it
Which sector has bigger potential - tertiary or residential?
Where to reduce consumption?
What about economic efficiency of energy savings - where
are the low-hanging fruits?
Which are the existing policies and measures to release the
potential? How to refine and tailor these?
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
4
MAIN TASKS
Description of the installed end-use technologies (energy
efficiency, penetration rate, usage pattern, specific energy
consumption, etc.);
Evaluation of the corresponding electricity use;
Estimation of the electricity savings potential;
Analysis of the prevalent barriers/incentives to energy
efficiency, an inventory of past and current energy-efficiency
activities and policies;
Survey of the situation regarding the development of Energy
Service Companies (ESCOs).
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
5
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS (1)
Expert workshop to kick start data collection process (21-22 October
2003, Ispra, Italy);
Second expert workshop ( -10 December 2004, Brussels, Belgium);
Proceedings on-line:
http://energyefficiency.jrc.cec.eu.int/html/Workshop_EE_9.12.04.html
Data collection: individual experts from energy agencies, academia,
ministries and official sources, such as central statistical offices.
Questionnaire already distributed to the National experts….
……and we already have some inputs……on-going gathering and
modeling data collection even we still have to collect more…
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
6
ELECTRICITY END-USE CONSUMPTION
Residential and tertiary sectors from NMS and CC account 50% of
total electricity consumption
It is a great amount of potential electricity savings
At the end of the 80’s the shares were much different than now, at
that time industry accounted for the greatest share of electricity
consumption, residential and tertiary being much lower in all CEEC’s
than in EU-15.
Residential
Tertiary
Industry
Transport
4%
24%
46%
26%
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
7
(source JRC)
ELECTRICITY END-USE CONSUMPTION (1)
For the design of any policy targeted to the end-use sectors, or
understanding the drivers of demand, it is necessary to review the level
of energy prices.
[Euro]
0,18
0,16
0,14
0,12
0,1
0,08
0,06
0,04
0,02
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
8
(source Eurostat)
EU
15
an
Sl
ia
ov
ak
R
ep
.
Sl
ov
en
ia
Tu
rk
ey
d
om
ta
la
n
R
Po
M
al
ni
a
ua
tv
ia
Li
th
La
ar
y
ia
un
g
H
Es
to
n
Re
p
s
ze
ch
yp
ru
tia
C
C
ro
a
C
Bu
lg
a
ria
0
Residential
tertiary
TERTIARY AND RESIDENTIAL SECTORS (1)
Considering that the trend for the electricity price is to increase and
that the energy markets in NMS, CC and WB are on the way of
liberalisation we can say that now is the right moment to foster energy
saving measures in these sectors with several important benefits:
improve economic efficiency
avoid the construction of new power generation
capacities for overcoming the necessary phase out of old
fossil and nuclear plants
ease the social burden of hiking energy prices through
reduced consumption
improve energy security in countries depending on power
imports.
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
TERTIARY AND RESIDENTIAL SECTORS (2)
[GWh]
Electricity consumption in the last 5 years (for 2004 only estimation)
2000
25000
2001
2002
2003
20000
2004
15000
10000
5000
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
10
(source JRC)
Sl
ov
en
ia
R
ep
.
ia
Sl
ov
ak
om
an
R
Po
la
nd
M
al
ta
ia
Li
th
ua
n
La
tv
ia
y
un
ga
r
H
Es
to
ni
a
ep
R
C
ze
ch
yp
ru
s
C
ro
at
ia
C
Bu
lg
ar
ia
0
RESIDENTIAL SECTOR
Breakdown of electricity use according to major types of
appliances; ownership levels; average specific energy
consumption of appliances
Not all appliances are covered in breakdowns
lighting, cold appliances and washing machines are the most
important regarding electricity consumption
Appliances sales
the market is on a good way?
what is the share of efficient appliances?
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
11
RESIDENTIAL SECTOR - STATUS
What do we have by now?
General data regarding electricity consumption: OK
Share of installed appliances in households: OK
Share of installed households heating systems: OK
Where are the gaps?
Any feedback to our questionnaire from few countries
Data regarding sales of equipments appear to be scarce
Only limited information about the share of installed lighting
appliances
Only limited information about the average consumption of
installed appliances
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
12
RESIDENTIAL SECTOR (1)
Households from NMS, CC and WB will contribute with 25% to the
residential sector of an enlarged EU…
EU-15
BG
HR
CY
RO
4,1%
EU-15
75,3%
NMS&CC
24,7%
CZ
EE
HU
PL
6,0%
TR
5,8%
LV
LT
MT
HU
1,9%
PL
BG
1,5%
CZ
1,9%
RO
SK
SI
TR
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
13
(source JRC)
RESIDENTIAL SECTOR (2)
…and with 32% to total population of an enlarged EU
EU 15
BG
HR
CY
CZ
RO
4,0%
EU 15
67,8%
NMS&CC
32,2%
PL
6,9%
EE
TR
12,4%
HU
LV
LT
MT
PL
HU
CZ
1,8% 1,9%
BG
1,5%
RO
SK
SI
TR
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
14
(source JRC)
RESIDENTIAL SECTOR – CONSUMPTION (1)
2000
25000
2001
2002
2003
2004
20000
[GWh/yr]
15000
10000
5000
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
15
Sl
ov
en
ia
ep
.
R
Sl
ov
ak
om
an
ia
R
Po
la
nd
M
al
ta
Li
th
ua
ni
a
La
tv
ia
y
un
ga
r
H
C
Es
to
ni
a
ep
ze
ch
R
yp
ru
s
C
C
ro
at
ia
Bu
lg
ar
ia
0
(source JRC)
[kWh/capita/yr.]
2000
1831
1758
1800
1559
1600
1400
1200
1505
1422
1285
1178
1177
1096
937
1000
800
612
600
549
561
378
400
263
200
0
16
(source JRC)
15
EU
ey
rk
Tu
ia
en
ov
Sl
ia
ak
ov
Sl
ia
an
m
Ro
nd
la
Po
ta
al
M
a
ni
ua
th
Li
ia
tv
La
y
ar
ng
Hu
a
ni
to
p.
Es
Re
h
ec
Cz
us
pr
Cy
tia
oa
Cr
ia
ar
lg
Bu
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
RESIDENTIAL SECTOR – APPLIANCES
Appliances and lighting take the main share of electricity
consumption in households and all the electricity end-use efficiency
actions in residential sector have to be oriented on these.
Ǿeating/
cooling
7,69
Lighting
29,03
12,91
Ref rigerators/
f reezers
Washing
machines
Cooking/
dishw asher
Hot w ater
Electronics
(TV , DV D etc.)
21,04
2,89
Dishw asher
7,65
Other
4,48
5,72
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
17
8,58
(source JRC)
RESIDENTIAL SECTOR – APPLIANCES
Refrigerator
Freezer
Clothes w ashing machine
[%]
Dishw asher
160,00
Air conditioning
TV
140,00
P.C.
120,00
100,00
80,00
60,00
40,00
20,00
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
18
(source JRC)
Tu
rk
ey
Sl
ov
en
ia
ep
.
R
Sl
ov
ak
om
an
ia
R
Po
la
nd
M
al
ta
th
ua
ni
a
Li
La
tv
ia
un
ga
ry
H
a
Es
to
ni
ep
R
ze
ch
C
C
yp
ru
s
at
ia
C
ro
Bu
lg
ar
ia
0,00
RESIDENTIAL SECTOR – WASHING MACHINES
Washing machines penetration in households from NMS and CC is
closer to the average of EU - 15
[%]
120,00
100,00
80,00
60,00
40,00
20,00
Bu
lg
ar
i
Cr a
oa
ti
Cy a
Cz pru
s
ec
h
Re
Es p
to
n
Hu ia
ng
ar
y
La
Li tv ia
th
ua
ni
a
M
al
ta
Po
la
Ro nd
Sl ma
n
ov
a k ia
Re
Sl p .
ov
en
i
Tu a
rk
ey
EU
15
0,00
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
1
(source JRC)
RESIDENTIAL SECTOR – WASHING MACHINES (2)
Analysing the age structure of the existing equipments reveals that close to 50%
percent of the installed stock of washing machines is older than 12 years, comparing
with only 25% in EU-15 and that means a great electricity saving potential.
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
20
(source CECED)
RESIDENTIAL SECTOR – WASHING MACHINES (3)
Cumulative sales of A and B classes are around 85% in NMS, CC and in EU-15 too.
Difference: a lower market penetration of A+ class and a lower percentage of A class
sales in NMS and CC.
- The highest
figures of A
class sales: in
Poland, Czech
Republic and
Malta.
0,2
4,3
0
0,7
0,1
0,7
0,3
0
0
0,9
18,7
35,8
42,7
59,6
62,6
67
76,9
73
27,9
74,9
76
24,3
37,8
45,1
28,8
31,2
25,4
9,8
4,9
6,1
0,8
6,9
4,7
4,1
4,6
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
21
9,9
1,1
8,3
A+
ro
at
ia
ia
ov
en
C
a
ki
Sl
ov
a
om
an
la
n
ia
d
A
Po
H
un
g
ar
y
ep
3,1
4,1
R
ria
12,2
14,8
C
Bu
lg
a
EE
C
C
15
11,1
5,4
ze
ch
7,1
3,2
8
13,2
15,2
R
12,4
Sl
22,1
EU
- The lowest for
A class sales are
in CC: Croatia,
Bulgaria and
Romania.
B
C
OTHERS
(source GfK)
Comparing with EU15 the status of New M.S. and C.C.
seems to be OK !!!
However it must to take into account that:
in almost all the countries the average income is much lower than
in EU15;
the prices for electricity are not at EU15 level;
the penetration of appliances in households is lower than in EU15
but growing; the distribution of appliances among classes is different
– higher share of less efficient appliances;
if no electricity saving measures are implemented, consumption
will reach EU-15 levels in the near future; look at Slovenia, Cyprus
and Malta figures! Bulgaria not typical!
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
22
TERTIARY SECTOR
Breakdown of electricity use according to major types of
equipments
Not all equipments are covered in breakdowns
Lighting, PC’s and air-conditioning/heating are most important
regarding electricity consumption
There is a potential to improve the efficiency of lighting equipment?
How great is?
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
23
TERTIARY SECTOR - STATUS
What do we have by now?
General data regarding electricity consumption: OK
Data only from few countries regarding installed lighting equipment and
PC’s
• Where are the gaps?
Any feedback to our questionnaire from few countries
Data regarding sales of equipments appear to be scarce
Only limited information about the share of installed lighting appliances
Only limited information about the average electricity consumption
Limited information regarding installed air conditioning/heating systems
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
24
TERTIARY SECTOR - CONSUMPTION
2000
9000
2001
8000
2002
2003
7000
2004
[GWh/yr]
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
n.a.
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
25
Sl
ov
en
ia
va
k
Re
p.
an
ia
Sl
o
Ro
m
d
an
Po
l
ta
M
al
a
Li
th
ua
ni
ia
tv
La
a
y
Hu
ng
ar
on
i
Es
t
p
Re
Cz
ec
h
Cy
pr
us
tia
oa
Cr
Bu
lg
ar
ia
0
(source JRC)
TERTIARY SECTOR – Few Considerations
From our first analysis the biggest potential for electricity saving in the
tertiary sector is concentrated mainly in public buildings and is likely to
be linked to the renovation process. The installed HVAC equipment
and sales are still dominated by high energy consumption models
therefore there should be a good potential for electricity saving. Also
a good potential to increase the energy efficiency is for the installed
lighting equipment (lamps and ballasts), but the sales of efficient
lighting equipment is on the rise, even if growth is slow.
We kindly asked experts to send at least estimated data regarding the
electricity consumption in buildings:
– lighting and average consumption of appliances and PC’s
– Consumption in tertiary: ANY DATA COULD BE HELPFUL!
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
26
CONCLUSIONS (1)
The electricity end-use in buildings from NMS ad CC has a great
potential of savings by renewing the existing aged appliances, by
replacing of the existing light equipment with more efficient ones
and by changing/improving the electrical heating systems.
Similar to the situation in EU-15, residential and tertiary sectors
from NMS and CC account around 50% of total electricity
consumption in NMS, CC and WB. A great electricity savings
potential therefore waits to be harvested.
Numerous energy efficiency EU and national programmes have
been developed in NMS and CC, mainly as a result of the
transposition of EU legislation; now the evaluation of the actual
energy savings achieved and actual potentials in a more systematic
manner is needed: by sectors, how much electricity, how much
thermal energy, what’s the contribution of renewable energy.
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
27
CONCLUSIONS (2)
The economic growth in NMS and CC is faster than in EU-15, so
the electricity consumption has a rate of increase at a higher
percent and now is the moment to act to foster energy saving
measures in these sectors with multiple benefits: increase electricity
end-use efficiency, increase the quality of life even with the
electricity price rises, reach the EU targets and avoid the
construction of new power generation capacities.
Restructuring the energy sector, particularly the bringing the
demand side to the restructured and liberalised markets, is a major
part of the sustainable development concept of EU. We need
energy but the way it is used must be evaluated in order to break
the link between economic growth and increase in energy
consumption and thus improve the quality of life without a
proportional increase of energy consumption.
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
28
Thank you for attention
[email protected]
[email protected]
END SHOW
THANK YOU AGAIN
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
BULGARIA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
2
Electricity endend-use efficiency in buildings in New Member States and Candidate Countries
Countries
PRELIMINARY REPORT
BULGARIA
Population: 7 845 800
Area:
110 3,6 km2
GDP:
16 576 mln. Euro (2002)
GDP/capita: 2 107 Euro(2002)
Electricity price [Euro/kWh]:
Tertiary/industry: 0,07 (2004)
Residential:
0,0 (2004)
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
30
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
• Energy Law, November 2003 – establishes the overall legal framework
for the energy sector
• Energy Efficiency Law, March 2004– regulates system of measures and
activities at national, regional, municipal level including energy services
(article 20 and 21)
Energy efficiency found
The Law on Energy Efficiency sets the rules for the establishment and the
functions of the Energy Efficiency Fund. According to it the Fund shall not be
part of the consolidated state budget and shall carry out its activities in
accordance with the Law on Energy Efficiency, the agreements with donors and
the legislation in force. It shall contribute to the fulfillment of the priorities
provided under the adopted by the Council of Ministers long- and short-term
energy efficiency programs. The Fund resources shall be expended for ‘Nongratuitously funding of projects for energy efficiency development in Bulgaria;’
and for ‘Guaranteed activity on credits granted for energy efficiency projects by
financial-credit institutions’.
• Regulation on the requirements for labeling of domestic appliances in
respect of their consumption of energy and other resources (in force
from 2004)
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
31
ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACTIVITIES
•
Municipal Energy Efficiency Network: EcoEnergy
–
–
–
•
Introduction of local energy efficiency policy
Reduction of the energy expenses of municipal budgets
Reduction of the energy endend-users expenses
Energy information system
– Reliable information database about energy by municipal sectors, target
groups and objects
– Basic information –about the buildings
– Periodical information
– A software developed and installed in more than 50 municipal energy
energy
efficiency offices
•
Energy efficiency facility
– In March 2004 the EBRD announced that it is investing up to 50 million
into a new facility that will help promote energy efficiency and renewable
energy projects in private sector businesses across Bulgaria.
•
Program “Energy and Culture”
– aims at improvement of energy efficiency of the buildings of the
institutions working in the sphere of culture and the buildings which are
‘national cultural monuments’ and to popularize the energy efficiency
efficiency
among the general population. The program comprises if three steps:
steps:
energy audit of the buildings; implementation of its recommendations;
recommendations;
monitoring and evaluation of the results
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
32
ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION
Residential sector
9210,4
2004 (est)
6600,4
Tertiary sector
9024,8
Industry
2003
9245,2
6090,0
2002
9280
5626,0
8456,4
2001
9720,8
5130,2
9013,2
2000
9836,8
5046,0
8560,8
0
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
5000
10000
Transport
9013,2
15000
20000
25000
33
A. TERTIARY SECTOR
Other sectors
energy
consum ption
92%
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
34
Tertiary energy
consum ption
8%
Tertiary electricity
consum ption
47%
30000 [GWh]
TERTIARY SECTOR - Lighting (1)
Share of installed lighting equipment
T5 tube
5%
T12 tube
5%
Incand. Lamps
15%
CFL
5%
T8 tube
70%
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
35
TERTIARY SECTOR – Lighting (2)
Share of market sales
Incand. Lam ps
16%
T12 tube
2%
T5 tube
6%
CFL
10%
T8 tube
66%
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
36
TERTIARY SECTOR – Lighting (3)
Installed ballasts
Lighting ballasts
New sales
5%
Electronic ballasts
15%
95%
Magnetic
ballasts
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
85%
37
TERTIARY SECTOR - Heating
Share of different type of installed heating systems
Gas boiler
1%
District heating
35%
Coal/oil/wood boiler
36%
Electric heating
28%
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
38
B. RESIDENTIAL SECTOR
General information:
No. of households:
2913000
Average no. of inhabitants per household:
2,66
63.55
Average area of a household [m2]:
Household energy/electricity consumption.
• While the total energy consumed by households is in line
with other countries with similar climatic and economic
conditions, Bulgaria stands out in the high level of household
electricity consumption which reflects the dependence on
electricity for water heating (a costly and inefficient use of
energy resources) due to historical choices (opting for large
nuclear and lignite-based power plants versus developing low
pressure gas networks) and will be particularly challenging to
overcome in the transition to a market economy.
• High electricity usage has been exacerbated by continued
electricity price subsidies and delays in modernizing district
heating systems or developing gas systems.
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
3
RESIDENTIAL - Lighting (1)
General information:
Average no. of CFL per household:
0,8 (est.)
Average no. of lighting points per household: 12
Share of installed lighting equipment
Linear
fluorescent
3%
Incandescent
lam p
88%
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
40
CFL
7%
Low voltage
halogen
1%
High w attage
upright halogen
1%
RESIDENTIAL - Lighting (2)
Share of market sales
Linear
fluorescent
12%
CFL
16%
Low voltage
halogen
5%
Incandescent
lam p
66%
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
High w attage
upright halogen
1%
41
RESIDENTIAL – Heating systems
Share of different type of installed heating systems
District heating
15,9%
Electric heating
20,0%
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
42
64,0%
RESIDENTIAL – Water heating systems
Share of different type of hot water systems
4,0%
District hot water
15,9%
Electric heating
80,0%
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
43
RESIDENTIAL – Appliances (1)
Appliances penetration in households
[%]
90
84,17
78,42
60
42,00
30
25,47
23,60
6,80
1,30
1,65
4,15
1,00
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
44
P
.C
.
TV
w
Fr
as
ee
hi
ze
ng
r
m
ac
...
D
is
hw
as
he
A
ir
r
co
nd
iti
on
in
g
pl
ay
er
s
V
C
R
s
D
V
D
R
ef
rig
er
at
or
C
lo
th
es
TV
sa
te
lli
t
e
re
ce
iv
er
0
Electricity consumption among 5 largest electricity using equipments
cooking
heating
hot water
lighting
other
26%
31%
9%
12%
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
22%
45
Others
Sales by energy classes
D
C
34,2
freezers
4,4
27,1
30,3
4,1
B
A
A+
refrigerators
washing
machines
0%
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
46
16,6
6,4
11,1
37,9
28,8
20%
38,7
24,3
40%
60%
0,4
35,8
80%
100%
Main brands on the national market
Major brand on
national market
Local / national producers
• Refrigerator
• Clothes
washing
machine
ARISTON
-
ARISTON
"ȿɥɞɨɦ ɢɧɜɟɫɬ" ɈɈȾ
• Air
conditioning
LG, ELITEQ
TOSHIBA
-
• TV
LG, SONY
Ȼɢɬɨɜɚ ɟɥɟɤɬɪɨɧɢɤɚ
"ȼɟɥɢɤɨ Ɍɴɪɧɨɜɨ"
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
47
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
• Center for energy efficiency EnEffect, Bulgaria
• Black Sea Regional Energy Centre (BSREC), Bulgaria
• Energy Efficiency Agency, Bulgaria
• GfK, Italy
• Central European University, Hungary
Berlin 17-18.02..2005
48
Institut für angewandte Ökologie
Institute for Applied Ecology
Freiburg • Darmstadt •
Berlin
Institut d’écologie appliquée
Emissions Trading
Challenges and Perspectives of EU Electricity-Enlargement
DIW & BMWA Workshop, 17-18 February 2005, Berlin
www.oeko.de
Martin Cames
Öko-Institut – Institut for Applied Ecology
Energy and Climate Change Division
Novalisstraße 10
D-10115 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-280 486-83
Fax +49-30-280 486-88
e-mail: [email protected]
Flexible Kyoto Mechanisms
Flexible Mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol
ET: emissions trading (Art. 17) – inventory based, trading
of Assigned Amount Units (AAU) within Annex I countries
JI: joint implementation (Art. 6) – project based, trading of
Emission Reduction Units (ERU) within Annex I countries
www.oeko.de
CDM: clean development mechanism (Art. 12) – project
based, trading of Certified Emission Reductions (EUR)
between Annex I and non-Annex I countries
EU Bubble (Art. 4) – “fulfil their commitments under Article
3 jointly”
Targets and required reduction or stabilisation, 2008-2012
-1.200
-1.100
-1.000
-900
-800
-700
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
-6,0%
Poland
0
-8,0%
Czech Republic
-15,4
-6,0%
Hungary
100
-33,9
-6,8
Slowak Republic
-8,0%
-5,8
Lithuania
-8,0%
-4,1
Estonia
-8,0%
-3,5
Lativa
-8,0%
-2,3
Slowenia
-8,0%
-1,7
Malta
Cyprus
-73,4
EU-10
-21,0%
Germany
-263,2
-12,5%
United Kingdom
-93,3
-6,5%
Italy
-33,0
-21,0%
Denkmark
-14,5
-6,0%
Netherlands
-12,7
-7,5%
Belgium
-11,0
-13,0%
Austria
-10,1
-28,0%
Luxembourg
-3,6
France
0,0%
0,0
Finland
0,0%
0,0
4,0%
www.oeko.de
Sweden
2,9
13,0%
Ireland
6,9
27,0%
Portugal
15,6
25,0%
Greece
27,3
15,0%
Spain
43,0
-8,0%
EU-15
-345,6
-419,0
EU-25
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Sources: EEA (2004) - Analysis of gas emission trends and projections in Europe 2003; own calculations
Distance-to-target indicators (in index points) for the Kyoto Protocol
and the EC burden sharing targets of EC Member States, 2001
1.9
1.3
EU-15
-7
United Kingdom
-6
Germany
-6
Sweden
-2
France
Luxembourg
2
-12
Netherlands
4
-1.4
Belgium
7
3
7
Finland
11
Greece
Denmark
12
9
13
Italy
Austria
16
11
Ireland
21
17
25
Portugal
30
www.oeko.de
Spain
- 15
- 10
-5
0
+5
+ 10
+ 15
+ 20
+ 25
Percentage points below (-) or above (+) linear target path
DTI 2002
DTI 2002 with use of Kyoto mechanisms
1) The Danish DTI is +3.5 index points, if Danish GHG emissions are adjusted for electricity trade in 1990.
Source: EEA (2004) - Analysis of gas emission trends and projections in Europe 2004
+ 30
+ 35
Distance-to-target indicators (in index points) for the Kyoto Protocol
of new Member States, 2001
-58,3
Latvia
-55,4
Lithuania
-50,4
Estonia
-29,0
Poland
-
Hungary
-27,4
-24,6
Slovak Republic
-20,9
www.oeko.de
Czech Republic
/
3,7
Slovenia
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Percent points below (-) or above (+) linear target path
Source: EEA (2004) - Analysis of gas emission trends and projections in Europe 2004
The EU Emissions Trading Scheme
An EU-wide scheme for all 15+10 EU member states
Based on the EU Directive 2003/87/EC as of 13 October 2003
www.oeko.de
Downstream scheme for large CO2 emitters
Pilot phase 2005-2007, first period 2008-12 (= Kyoto period)
95 to 90% free allocation of allowances to installations,
based on National Allocation Plans
Strong compliance regime (penalties of 40 /t CO2e in the pilot phase
and 100 /t CO2e beyond 2007)
Many degrees of subsidiarity for national implementation
Notification and approval of National Allocation Plans (NAPs) by
the Commission
In most EU member states no tradition in using flexible
mechanisms in environmental policies and legislation
The EU Emissions Trading Scheme Legal Framework
www.oeko.de
EU ETS Directive (2003/87/EC, 13 October 2003).
Commission Guidance on National Allocation Plans
(COM(2003) 830 final, 7 January 2004)
Commission Guidelines for monitoring and reporting
(2004/156/EC, 29 January 2004)
EU Linking Directive (2004/101/EC, 27 October 2004)
Commission Regulation for a standardised and secured
system of registries (agreed, 24 June 2004)
Many degrees of subsidiarity for national implementation
Definition of installation
Implementation of opt-in, opt-out and pooling provision
National Allocation Plans
www.oeko.de
Determining the total quantity of allowances
Allocation of allowances to individual installations
Treatment of closures
Treatment of new entrants, reserves
Banking
Special provisions for early action, CHP, nuclear etc.
Status of National Allocation Plans, as of 31 January 2005
www.oeko.de
Accepted
Belgium
Denmark
Ireland
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Cyprus
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Malta
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
1)
Accpeted with technical
modificaitons
Austria
Finland
France
Germany
1)
United Kindom
Not
yet
assessed
Greece
Italy
Czech Republic
Poland
United Kingdom has submitted a revised NAP in November which is not yet approved.
Definition of installation
Wide: all combustion installations in all
sectors
Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Netherlands
Medium: steam crackers & melting furnaces
www.oeko.de
Austria, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Portugal,
Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom
Narrow: only combustion installation in the
sectors mentioned in Annex I of the Directive
Italy
Provisions on opt-in, opt-out and pooling
Opt-in
Yes
No
Austria
Finland
Sweden
www.oeko.de
Opt-out
Belgium
Denmark
France
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
United Kingodm
Czech Republic
Estonia
Hungary
Malta
Poland
Slovak Republic
Latvia
Lithuania
Slovenia
Pooling
Yes
No
Yes
No
Belgium
France
Netherlands
United Kingodm
Austria
Denmark
Finland
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Austria
Denmark
France
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Poland
Portugal
Spain
United Kingodm
Sweden
Czech Republic
Poland
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Malta
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Czech Republic
Hungary
Lithuania
Slovenia
Estonia
Malta
Slovak Republic
Number of allowances and installations & share of emissions
Allowances 1)
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
Mt CO2/a
%
No.
%
%
33,0
62,9
33,5
45,5
156,5
499,0
71,3
22,3
240,7
3,6
95,3
38,2
174,6
22,9
245,3
1,5%
2,8%
1,5%
2,0%
7,0%
22,3%
3,2%
1,0%
10,8%
0,2%
4,3%
1,7%
7,8%
1,0%
11,0%
209
360
357
326
1.172
1.849
139
110
1.500
19
333
239
927
499
1.078
1,8%
3,2%
3,1%
2,9%
10,3%
16,2%
1,2%
1,0%
13,1%
0,2%
2,9%
2,1%
8,1%
4,4%
9,4%
38,7%
42,0%
48,9%
55,5%
22,3%
49,1%
55,1%
32,4%
43,5%
31,1%
44,6%
46,8%
43,1%
32,9%
38,6%
4)
EU-15
www.oeko.de
Share of total
GHG emissions
in 2002
Installations 2)
3)
1.744,6
78,1%
9.117
79,8%
41,5%
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Malta
Poland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
5,7
107,7
19,0
12,3
4,6
12,3
2,9
286,2
30,5
8,8
0,3%
4,8%
0,8%
0,5%
0,2%
0,5%
0,1%
12,8%
1,4%
0,4%
13
477
43
107
72
107
2
1.166
236
80
0,1%
4,2%
0,4%
0,9%
0,6%
0,9%
0,0%
10,2%
2,1%
0,7%
#NV
75,4%
96,9%
38,3%
43,7%
63,6%
103,4% 5)
74,8% 6)
59,6%
43,1%
EU-10
489,8
21,9%
2.303
20,2%
69,0%
2.234
100,0%
11.420
100,0%
45,6%
EU-25
1)
2)
Including new entrants reserves; Without opt-in or opt-out;
which is not yet approved; 5) 2000; 6) 2001.
Source: NAPs; own calculations
3)
Estimate;
4)
UK has submitted a revised NAP in November
Allocation compared to base period
Slovenia
Hungary
-3,0%
-2,1%
Slovak Republic
15,0%
20,9%
Czech Republic
25,4%
Lativa
30,2%
Poland
30,9%
Cyprus
Lithuania
43,0%
57,5%
Estonia
64,9%
Malta
Greece
-1,3%
Germany
-0,4%
United Kingdom
-0,2%
+2,5%?
Beglium
4,3%
Portugal
5,0%
Spain
6,5%
Netherlands
6,9%
Ireland
7,5%
www.oeko.de
Italy
Austria
8,3%
Denmark
8,4%
10,9%
France
13,4%
Sweden
Luxembourg
15,8%
Finland
25,7%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Allocation compared to projection for 2006
Slowenia
-8,0%
Lithuania
-7,9%
-2,0%
Slowak Republic
Hungary
0,0%
Malta
0,0%
Cyprus
0,7%
3,9%
Czech Republic
8,4%
Lativa
8,8%
Poland
43,7%
Estonia
Denkmark
Sweden
Luxembourg
-14,8%
-13,9%
-9,2%
Austria
-6,0%
-4,4%
France
www.oeko.de
Netherlands
-3,4%
Finland
-3,0%
Ireland
-3,0%
Greece
-2,9%
-1,9%
Portugal
-1,5%
Italy
-0,7%
United Kingdom
Spain
0,0%
Belgium
0,0%
1,6%
Germany
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Calculation of “2006 target”
1.400
Other
Emissions trading sector
Total GHG
1.200
1.
1.000
800
600
4.
400
www.oeko.de
2.
3.
49%
49%
200
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Allocation compared to “2006 target”
Lativa
-38,4%
Lithuania
-20,0%
-17,0%
Hungary
Estonia
-5,6%
-1,6%
Slowak Republic
0,9%
Slowenia
5,8%
Czech Republic
6,3%
Poland
Cyprus
Malta
+0,8%?
Greece
-1,9%
United Kingdom
-1,8%
1,0%
Germany
Belgium
5,6%
8,0%
Sweden
France
9,6%
Portugal
9,7%
Netherlands
10,3%
13,4%
www.oeko.de
Ireland
16,3%
Spain
17,5%
Italy
20,7%
Denkmark
23,5%
Austria
27,4%
Luxembourg
Finland
-50%
30,7%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Intended use of flexible Kyoto Mechanisms
United Kingdom
0,0
Sweden
0,0
Portugal
0,0
Greece
0,0
Germany
0,0
France
0,0
Finland
0,0
Luxembourg
Assessed: 65,6 MtCO2e
Not yet assesd: 69,2 MtCO2e
Share of
AAUs
3,0
32,7%
Ireland
3,7
6,1%
Denkmark
3,7
6,8%
Austria
7,0
www.oeko.de
Belgium
10,3%
8,2
6,0%
Spain
20,0
6,1%
Netherlands
20,0
10,0%
Italy
69,2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
14,6%
70
80
MtCO2e
Share of electricity and heat production in total CO2 emissions, 1990 (%)
15,8
17,1
Latvia
Slovakia
20,7
Lithuania
26,3
Hungary
29,8
Czech Republic
35,8
Cyprus
46,0
Slovenia
51,7
Poland
58,1
Malta
60,9
Estonia
40,6
EU-10
6,7
8,3
Luxembourg
Sweden
12,8
France
21,6
23,7
Belgium
Austria
30,7
31,9
32,9
33,3
34,7
Finland
The Netherlands
Spain
Italy
Ireland
38,0
39,4
41,7
43,6
www.oeko.de
Germany
United Kingdom
Portugal
Denmark
48,8
Greece
32,9
34,3
EU-15
EU-25
0
10
20
30
Source: EC (2003) - European Energy and Transport Trends to 2030
40
50
60
70
80
Change between 1990 and 2010 in CO2 emissions from electricity
and heat production (%)
-59,4
Estonia
-6,0
-5,8
-5,3
Poland
Lithuania
Slovenia
10,9
16,0
Czech Republic
Latvia
29,7
Hungary
49,2
Cyprus
60,4
Slovakia
106,8
Malta
-2,7
EU-10
-33,8
United Kingdom
-18,3
-13,0
-9,2
-9,0
-2,8
-0,3
Denmark
Germany
Finland
Belgium
Italy
Austria
5,7
The Netherlands
16,8
France
28,2
Spain
44,0
49,0
51,7
www.oeko.de
Portugal
Ireland
Greece
82,2
Luxembourg
132,0
Sweden
-6,7
-5,9
EU-15
EU-25
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
Share of electricity and heat production in total CO2 emissions, 2010 (%)
989
EU-5
396
411
Slovak Republic
Hungary
845
Czech Republic
937
Malta
990
Cyprus
1.266
Poland
Lithuania
Slovak Republic
Latvia
Estonia
284
EU-10
100
France
144
Portugal
185
Austria
299
304
320
Finland
Spain
United Kingdom
452
472
Italy
Ireland
573
Denmark
779
www.oeko.de
Greece
Sweden
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Germany
Belgium
0
200
400
600
800
1.000
1.200
1.400
tCO2e/GWh
Specific allocation for electricity generation
402
Slovenia
420
Hungary
466
Lithuania
857
Czech Republic
966
Malta
1.009
Cyprus
1.302
Poland
Slovak Republic
Latvia
Estonia
102
France
149
Portugal
188
Austria
305
Finland
313
Spain
327
United Kingdom
461
Italy
487
Ireland
577
Denmark
www.oeko.de
Sweden
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Greece
Germany
Belgium
0
200
400
600
800
1.000
1.200
1.400
tCO2e/GWh
Sources: EC (2003) - European Energy and Transport Trends to 2030; NAPs; own calculations
www.oeko.de
Potential impacts on the electricity industry in
the new Member States
It will be by far the largest player in emissions trading in the
new member states
Participation in joint implementation as a host is not allowed for
all installations which are covered by the EU ETS
If the NAPs are not rejected, electricity generation will be
endowed with more allowances than needed; correspondingly
they will be net-sellers
The EU ETS will give incentives for generation technologies
and fuels with less CO2 emissions: CCGT, renewables etc.
Investment decision might, however, be postponed until first
experiences are gained with emissions trading (2006 onwards)
www.oeko.de
Conclusions
Most of the old EU Member States are not on track to achieve their
burden sharing targets; the EU ETS was designed to bring the EU
back on track
However, the contribution from the EU ETS will be small
Too much heterogeneity in design options
Too generous allocation
Improvements for the second period are needed
Homogeneous definition of installations
Harmonisation (benchmarks, closure & transfer rules etc.)
Stronger assessment of NAPs
Despite the flaws of the current system it will create a new currency
(EUA) which will change the incentive structure in electricity
generation and all covered sectors substantially towards more climate
friendly electricity generation in the long run
Allocation Plans for CO2
Workshop „Challenges and Perspectives of EU Electricity-Enlargement“
DIW+BMWA, 17./18. February 2005
[email protected]
Content
1. GHG Emission targets according EU burden sharing and Kyoto protocol
2. National Allocation Plans
3. Influence of Emission Trading System on existing installations
4. Influence of Emission Trading System on new investments
5. Conclusions
11.02.2005
[email protected]
2
Greenhouse gas emission trends and projections
EU-23
EU-15
New Member States
EU-25 had emissions 9% below base year
emissions – but ¾ of the reduction happened
in the new member states.
For the EU-15 it will become difficult to fulfil
the Kyoto targets.
11.02.2005
[email protected]
3
Source: Greenhouse gas emission trends and projections in Europe 2004 Progress by the EU and its Member States towards achieving their Kyoto
Protocol targets, EEA Report No 5/2004, December 2004
Content
5. Conclusions
11.02.2005
[email protected]
4
National Allocation Plans – Status February 10, 2005
11.02.2005
Approved,
unconditionally
Approved,
conditionally
Submitted but
not yet approved
Denmark
Ireland
Netherlands
Slovenia
Sweden
Belgium
Estonia
Latvia,
Luxembourg
Slovak Republic
Portugal
Cyprus
Hungary
Lithuania
Malta
Austria
Germany
UK
Finland
France
Spain
Czech Republic
Italy
Greece
Poland
[email protected]
5
Allowance balance
Allow ance balance
69,1
30,00
95,7
25,00
20,00
[Mton CO2]
15,00
10,00
5,00
X
0,00
-5,00
DK
IRL
NL
S
GER
X
X
AU
FI
BE
LU
UK
PT
X
IT
X
SP
PL
LIT
-10,00
-15,00
-20,00
-25,00
Allocation -vs- Current emissions
Allocation -vs- BAU emissions
X = data incomplete
Æ Most countries over-allocate in comparison to current emission levels
Æ Poland allocates ~20% above identified needs
11.02.2005
[email protected]
6
Total
Elements of allocation in Poland
Source: Department of Environmental Protection Instruments Department of Environmental Protection Instruments
Ministry of the Ministry of the Environment, April 2004
11.02.2005
[email protected]
7
Conclusions of quantitative NAP-analysis
Allocations seem generous, sometimes overly so. Little pressure on trading sector - but
demand and supply are expected to create a functioning market.
Much seems to be expected of the non-trading sector, but without saying a lot on how
this will be accomplished.
Some accession countries likely to become exporters (e.g. Poland), while some EU-15
states probably will have to import allowances.
There seems to be a significant discrepancy between claims on JI/CDM and real
efforts/progress towards realisation. Several Member States depend heavily on using
JI/CDM to reach their commitment.
11.02.2005
[email protected]
8
National NAPs have different allocation rules for new power plants
Coal Condensing Power
Natural Gas CCGT
nl
an
d
Fi
De
nm
ar
k
Sw
ed
en
G
er
m
an
y
Li
th
ua
ni
a
nl
an
d
Fi
De
nm
ar
k
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Sw
ed
en
G
er
m
an
y
Li
th
ua
ni
a
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
The allocation methods of the EU member states differ from each other very much.
According to the mostly used methods new installations get:
Allowances according to a product specific benchmark
Allowances according to a fuel specific benchmark
Zero allocation
Allowances according to the allocation to a replaced installation (for a certain time period)
Æ Different investment conditions depending on allocation mechanisms
11.02.2005
[email protected]
9
Content
5. Conclusions
11.02.2005
[email protected]
10
Theoretical mechanism of dispatch under ETS influence
¾
The allowance need depends
directly on the production amount.
The Market value of allowances is
part of the marginal cost of power
plants.
¾
The power plant production is
offered with the marginal cost
including market value of
certificates at the spot market
¾
In case of a switch in the merit
order the power plant reduces its
production. It gets its contribution
margin by selling the allowances.
/MWh
Deckungsbeitrag
Contribution
margin1inbei
Verkauf
der Zertifikate
case
of allowances
sold
Market
price electricity
Strommarktpreis
marginal
cost of the
Zuwachskosten
power
plant
des Kraftwerksblockes
¾
cost
of the
Kosten
der
allowances
Emissionsrechte
Model – taking full (opportunity) cost into account
Contribution
margin1inbei
Deckungsbeitrag
case of electricity sold
Erzeugung und Verkauf
des Stromes
Æ ETS will be taken into account irrespective of the allocation mechanism.
Æ Pricing mechanism is essential for functioning of the ETS system.
11.02.2005
[email protected]
11
Example: Switches in the merit order with higher prices of
emission allowances
Merit Order of Marginal Cost Depending on Price of Allowances
70,00
Lignite old
Hard Coal old
60,00
Lignite 2010
50,00
Hard Coal 2010
EUR/MWh
CCGT (without gas tax)
40,00
30,00
20,00
10,00
0,00
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
EUR/t CO2
Æ Every cross point marks a switch in the merit order.
Æ The switch between coal and gas (new plants) happens around 40 /tCO2.
11.02.2005
[email protected]
12
Influence of Emission Trading System on existing installations
Power plant operation
As far as a functioning spot market exists the power plant operation depends
on the position in the merit order of marginal costs.
(Opportunity-)cost of allowances is part of marginal cost.
The influence of Emission Trading System does not depend on allocation
mechanism (exception: ex-post adjustments) but on specific emissions and
allowance-price.
Profit and loss
Allocation mechanism has direct influence on profit and loss account of plant
owner.
Over-allocation leads to allowances sales earnings, under-allocation leads to
purchase cost (alternatively cost for emission reduction measures).
Æ Different allocation mechanisms for equal installations lead to competitive
distortions (depending on other political and economic conditions).
Æ Market shares are primarily not touched.
11.02.2005
[email protected]
13
Content
5. Conclusions
11.02.2005
[email protected]
14
Power production capacity gap
70
OIL
Demand = Load + Reserve Power
60
GAS
Growth
50
Capacity reduction because of
shutdowns 40-50 GW
COAL GAS
New
Capacity ?
40
COAL
[GW]
(incl. nuclear phase out 20 GW)
HYDRO
30
Fossil
fuels
Potential from technical
refurbishment
Available
Capacity
20
Load UCTE
10
Nuclear
Capacity
Forecast
0
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
Source: Haas, Keseric, Resch: Medium- and Long-Term Effects of EUElectricity Enlargement. EEG, Vienna University of Technology, Dec. 2004
Example Germany
Example Poland
Æ Need for investments in power generation all over Europe
11.02.2005
[email protected]
15
Investment criteria for new power plants
Main investment criteria in liberalised market is the return on investment cost
compared to other investments.
To prepare investment decisions power companies try to forecast their own
investment cost, O&M and fuel cost versus market price development.
The Emission Trading System creates additional cost component:
Marginal cost as criteria for position in the merit order and the yearly power
production
Allowance purchase cost according to the allocation rules.
Unfortunately there are large uncertainties about future allowance price and
allocation methods.
Knowledge of the general political conditions is necessary to come to an
investment decision.
11.02.2005
[email protected]
16
Full and marginal cost on power plants depending on
allowance allocation (example)
Full and marginal cost depending on allowance allocation (example, 7000 h/a)
70,00
Hard Coal (20% allowance
purchase)
/MWh
60,00
Natural Gas CCGT (20%
allowance purchase)
50,00
Hard Coal (100%
allowance purchase)
40,00
Natural Gas CCGT (100%
allowance purchase)
Hard Coal- marginal cost
30,00
Natural Gas CCGTmarginal cost
20,00
CO2-free hard coal power
plant (c+t+s-cost: 20 /t)
10,00
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
/t
Fuel choice for new installation may depend mainly on allocation
mechanism and on expected market price of allowances.
11.02.2005
[email protected]
17
Promoting or hindering (re)investments
•
The major CO2 emission reduction possibility is the replacement of older power
plants.
•
Investments in new power plants having an expected lifetime of 40 years are
necessary during the next 10… 15 years and need a stable political framework.
•
Stepwise allocation ruling for 3/5 year trading periods creates significant uncertainty
threatening new investments.
•
Knowledge of the long term general political conditions or at least longer lasting
allocation mechanisms are necessary to make investment decisions.
•
Because fixing a long term global reduction path will take plenty of time utilities need
fixed allocation schemes for at least 15 years after commissioning now.
•
Political decisions about allocation method and reduction path have to consider the
importance of secure and low cost electricity supply for competitiveness of the EU
(see Lisbon agenda).
Æ EU member states have different rules for new installations because of historic
development and current fuel base (no systematic difference between EU-15 and
new members).
Æ Differences in investment conditions between EU members become larger.
11.02.2005
[email protected]
18
Content
5. Conclusions
11.02.2005
[email protected]
19
Conclusions
¾ During first and second period of emission trading the conditions for generous
allocation of most new EU members is much better than in most of EU-15 countries.
¾ Main consequence is a positive impact on profit and loss situation for installations in
new EU member states in relation to which in EU-15 (but often with a higher economic
pressure because of obligation to fulfil EU environmental regulations).
¾ A positive effect for all market participants with a allowance short position is that the
allowance prices are tendential decreased because of generous allocation.
¾ Physical market shares of existing power pants will be influenced by emission trading
system because of opportunity cost depending on specific emissions and allowance
price – but not by different allocation mechanisms!
¾ Allocation rules for new installations differ over a large range. Most of national rules
are not investment-friendly – irrespective of being a part of EU-15 or a new member.
Further development of allocation mechanisms as part of energy policy (!) seems to be
necessary.
11.02.2005
[email protected]
20
“Challenges and Perspectives of EU ElectricityElectricity- Enlargement”
BMWA Workshop, Berlin
Long-term development of generation
and transmission capacity in the new
EU member and candidate states
Nenad Keseric
Institute of Power Systems and Energy Economics
Energy Economics Group (EEG)
Vienna University of Technology
Berlin, February 2005
CONTENT
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction
Current Capacities and Load: An overwiew
Development of demand
Country studies: Capacities and Load
Comparison: Wholesale prices
Largest Generators in EU-XXX-Large
Current Transmission
Future Transmission
Conclusions
From EUEU-15 to EUEU-25 … and Beyond Tomorrow's Europe
+
+
in
and
2007
Installed and max. available capacity in EUEU-15 vs. peak load in 2003
Installed and available capacity in EU -15 vs. peak load in 2003
130
R enewables
Therm al
Nuclear
Hydro
Available capacity
Peak Load 2003
120
110
100
90
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
K
U
en
S
w
ed
pa
in
S
al
s
or
tu
g
P
et
h
bo
N
m
xe
Lu
er
la
nd
ur
g
ly
It a
d
la
n
e
ec
re
G
Ir e
y
an
m
d
ce
er
G
Fr
an
an
Fi
nl
ar
k
m
um
en
e
D
el
gi
B
us
tri
a
0
A
[GW]
80
Installed generation capacity in new EUEU-10+ CC & Ukraine in 2003
(Russia: 216 GW capacity, about 150 GW peak load)
In stalled capacity in n ew E U -10+ C C & U kraine vs. peak load in 2003*
52
O thers
R enew ables
Therm al
Nuc lear
Hydro
Peak Load 2003
48
44
40
36
[GW]
32
28
24
20
16
12
8
4
ai
ne
ey
kr
U
Tu
rk
ia
an
R
om
ro
a
C
ul
ga
ti a
ri a
ia
B
lo
v
S
S
P
lo
v
ak
en
ia
d
ol
an
ta
M
al
ni
a
ua
a
tv
i
Li
th
La
ia
y
E
st
on
ar
un
g
H
C
C
ze
ch
R
yp
ru
ep
s
.
0
The annual demand is expected to increase in EUEU-10+ CC
(especially after 2010) more then in EUEU-15
Annual demand increase in EU-25 and CC until 2030
4,5%
European
Union (15)
4,0%
3,5%
3,0%
2,5%
European
Union 10+
2,0%
1,5%
1,0%
0,5%
Candidate
countries
03
-2
20
26
-2
20
21
-2
16
20
0
5
02
0
02
5
01
20
11
-2
20
06
-2
00
20
-2
01
00
0
5
0,0%
The annual demand increase rates in new EUEU-10+ CC till 2030
Annual demand increase in new EU-10 + CC until 2030
5,0%
2006-2010
4,5%
4,0%
2011-2015
3,5%
3,0%
2,5%
2016-2020
2,0%
1,5%
2021-2025
1,0%
0,5%
2026-2030
y
rk
e
Tu
R
Bu
om
an
ia
ria
lg
a
ia
en
Sl
ov
Po
Sl
ov
la
n
ak
ia
d
ta
M
al
ni
a
Li
th
ua
tv
ia
La
ar
y
H
un
g
ia
to
n
Es
C
ze
ch
C
Re
p
ub
yp
ru
s
lic
0,0%
Gross electricity demand development in EUEU-10 + CC till 2030 [TWh]
1200
Turkey
1100
Romania
1000
Bulgaria
900
Slovenia
800
Slovakia
700
Poland
600
Malta
500
Lithuania
400
Latvia
300
Hungary
Estonia
200
Czech
Republic
Cyprus
100
Year
30
20
25
20
20
20
15
20
10
20
05
20
00
0
20
Gross electricity demand [TWh]
Source: EU 2003
But, because of high age a vast part of old thermal power plants will go
offline and nuclear capacity will be decommissioned till 2020!
Power plant decommissioning in EU-15 (2005-2020)
60
2020
50
2015
[GW]
40
30
2010
20
10
2005
0
ri
st
Au
a
y
k
e
ce
nd
nd
ar
um
an
ec
la
la
an
gi
e
m
e
m
l
n
r
r
r
i
r
e
I
F
F
e
G
n
Be
G
De
Ita
s
ga
nd
a
l
rtu
r
m
o
e
e
P
x
th
Lu
Ne
ly
rg
ou
l
n
n
ai
de
e
Sp
Sw
UK
Also in new EUEU-10 and Candidate Countries
For both of markets growing need for investments in new capacity !
Power plant decommissioning in New Member States and Candidate Countries
16
14
2020
12
2015
8
6
2010
4
2
2005
Ro
m
an
ia
Bu
lg
ar
ia
ov
en
ia
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Sl
Po
la
nd
al
ta
M
a
Li
th
ua
ni
a
La
tv
i
y
Hu
ng
ar
Es
to
ni
a
Cz
eh
.R
ep
.
0
Cy
pr
us
[GW]
10
Generation capacity in the EUEU-25, CC, Russia and Ukraine and new
generation mix
220
Installed capacity in E U -25+ C C , R ussia & U kraine in 2003
H ydro
N uclear
Thermal
R enew ables
Others
200
Generation mix of EU-25 & Candidate Countries
180
100%
90%
160
Others
80%
[GW]
140
70%
Renewables
60%
120
50%
100
Thermal
40%
+
=
+
=
30%
80
Nuclear
20%
60
10%
Hydro
0%
40
EU-15
New EU-10
EU-25
Candidate
Countries
EU-25+CC
20
G
R
us
e r si a
m
a
Fr ny
an
ce
It a
ly
U
K
S
p
U ain
kr
ai
n
Tu e
rk
S ey
w
ed
e
P
N o n
et la
he nd
rl a
n
A ds
us
t
F i ria
n
R lan
o
C ma d
ze n
ch ia
R
B ep
el
.
D gi
en um
em
B ar k
ul
g
P a ria
or
tu
g
G al
re
S ec
lo e
va
H ki a
un
Li ga
t h ry
ua
n
Ir e i a
la
C nd
ro
a
E tia
st
on
S
lo ia
ve
n
Lu L ia
a
xe tv
m ia
bo
u
C rg
yp
ru
s
M
al
ta
0
Decommissioning in EUEU-10+ and Candidate Countries
Growing need for investments in new capacity !
120
Power plant decommissioning in New Member States and Candidate Countries
Romania
Bulgaria
57 GW - Almost the half of
old power plant should be
replaced!
100
Slovenia
Slovakia
80
[GW]
Poland
Malta
60
Lithuania
Latvia
40
Hungary
Estonia
20
Czeh.Rep.
Cyprus
0
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
Poland - the biggest electricity market in new EUEU-10
•
The biggest power market in Eastern Europe with installed capacity
capacity 31,7 GW,
predominantly coal (93%) and hydro accounting 7%
Significant generation capacity, good geographical locationlocation- biggest regional exporter
Grid operator PSE (still) holds monopoly on electricity import and
and export
With 8 major players has a reasonable amount of competition (PKE,
(PKE, Elektrim,
Elektrim, BOT,
Electrabel, EdF/EnBW,
EdF/EnBW, E.oN,
E.oN, Atel)
Atel)
•
•
•
70
O IL
60
GAS
50
COAL GA S
Ne w
C a p a c ity ?
COAL
[GW]
40
HY DRO
30
A va ila b le
C a p a c it y
20
L o a d U C TE
10
C a p a c it y
F o re c a s t
0
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
Hungary
•
•
•
•
•
Installed capacity of about 8 GW
Hungary’s only nuclear power plant Paks (1,86GW) is a subsidiary of MVM and
produces about 40% of the demand
Power utility MVM is most important market player, problem of long
long term contracts
Since 1999 net importer of electricity
MVM planed retrofit of 700 MW and construction of 1,1GW by 2006
13
12
F o re c a s t
11
H is to r ic a l
N ew
C a p a c ity ?
10
9
[GW]
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2000
HY DRO
2005
GAS
C a p a c it y F o re c a s t
2010
CO A L
O IL
L o a d (U C TE )
2015
NUCLE A R
C a p . in c o n s t ru c t io n
A va ila b le c a p a c it y
2020
Peak load development vs. installed capacity in Czech Republic
•
•
•
•
•
Second largest electricity market in new EUEU-10 with 16GW (thermal 64%, nuclear 23%)
Since 1998 net exporter of electricity to EUEU-15 with balance of 16,2TWh in 2003!
After 2002 with new 2GW installed in NPP Temelin even higher exports
exports of electricity
Decommissioning of NPP Dukovany 2015 - 2017
Time schedule for decommissioning in NPP Temelin 2030 or even sooner
sooner ?
22000
20000
Forecast
18000
New
capacity ?
Historical
16000
14000
[MW]
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
GAS
NUCLEAR
COAL
HYDRO
OIL
Capacity in construction
Wind
EU Capacity Forecast
Peak load UCTE
Availiable capacity
Peak load development vs. installed capacity in Slovakia
•
•
Total installed capacity in 2003 was about 8GW with production of
of 28,9 TWh
The dominant incumbent generator is Slovenske Elektrane (SE) with
with about 84% of
electricity produced
Since 1999 export country and also transit country for Polish and
and Czech electricity to
EU15
and
Hungary
EU
•
12000
Capacity in
c ons truc tion
Forecast
H istorical
10000
COA L
NUCLE A R
8000
[MW]
New
Capacity ?
GA S
6000
HY DRO
4000
A vailable
c apac ity
Load UCTE
2000
0
2000
Capacity
Forec ast
2005
2010
2015
2020
Peak load development vs. installed capacity in Slovenia until 2020
2020
•
•
Until 2003 net exporting country, but…
Due to expected higher increase of el. consumption and relative tight capacity
margin, power system is nearing its limit capabilities in 2007
Investments in new generation capacities needed to meet additional
additional growth in
electricity demand
•
E x c e s s c a p a c it y v s . p e a k lo a d in S lo v e n ia
4500
F o re c a s t
4000
H is t o r ic a l
New
C a p a c it y ?
3500
[MW]
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
HYDRO
COAL
NUCLE A R
GAS
O IL
C a p a c i t y F o re c a s t
L o a d (U C T E )
A va i l a b l e c a p a c i t y
Baltic countries as a one power pool: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania
Lithuania
•
•
•
•
Total installed generation capacity of Baltic Interconnected System
System -11,3 GW including Lithuania with
about 6 GW (as of January 2004)
According to agreement reached by EU accession negotiations, the first reactor block of Ignalina
NPP with 1,3 GW capacity will be closed in 2005
Estonian Narva NPP (2,2 GW) will become largest electricity producer in the Baltic
Baltic countries
The Baltic interconnected System is a regional exporter of electricity
electricity
D e v e lo p m e n t o f p o w e r p la n ts in L ith u a n ia u n til 2 0 2 0
6000
C lo s u r e o f Ig n a lin a N u c le a r
P o w e r P la n t
- 1 s t b lo c k in 2 0 0 5
- 2 n d b lo c k in 2 0 0 9
5500
5000
4500
4000
[MW]
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
2000
2005
H YD R O
GAS
2010
O IL
2015
NUC LE A R
2020
C a p a c i ty F o re c a s t
Candidate Countries: RomaniaRomania- the biggest producer among South
Eastern European (SEE) countries
•
•
Substantial overcapacity of 16,4GW, also significant oil and gas resources
resources
40% of annual electricity needs supplied by coal and lignite,30% by hydroelectric plants, oil 21%,
and nuclear 10%.
Regional exporter of electricity with balance of physical exchanges
exchanges of 2,1TWh in 2003
cooperation with Bulgaria, Serbia & Montenegro for creation of the
the Southeast European (SEE)
regional market
•
•
28
F o recast
26
H is to r ic a l
24
22
20
18
[ GW ]
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2000
2005
2010
NUC LEAR
GAS
L o a d fo re c a s t U C T E *
2015
COAL
H YD R O
C a p a c i ty F o re c a s t
2020
O IL
N e w c a p a c i ty
A va i la b le c a p a c i ty
Candidate Countries: Bulgaria
•
•
•
Total installed (over)capacity
(over)capacity in 2003 exceeds 12 GW but most of generation assets
are outdated and need to be replaced or upgraded
Production 36,3TWh of which 47% in thermal and 45% in nuclear power
power plants
Regional net exporter of electricity with balance of physical exchanges
exchanges of 5,5TWh
16
15
Forecast
Historical
14
13
12
2GW of new nuclear
capacity until 2020
11
[ GW ]
10
9
8
7
6
5
C losure of
K oz loduy nuclear
pow er plant untis 1
and 2 in 2003
Planed closure of
K oz loduy nuclear
pow er plant untis 3
and 4 until 2007
4
3
2
1
0
2000
2005
NUC LEAR
Nuclear new
Available capacity
2010
C OAL
Thermal new
C apacity Forecast
2015
HYD RO
Hydro new
2020
GAS
Load forecast UC TE*
Russia
•
•
•
Total installed capacity in Russian federation - 216,4 GW
national power giant Unified Energy System holds a monopoly position – 156.6 GW,
generates 69,4% of electricity production
owns 96,1% of highhigh-voltage grids and 77% of distribution network
350
Forecast
300
Historical
250
[ GW ]
200
150
100
50
0
2000
2005
2010
Nuclear
Thermal
Required capacity
2015
2020
Hydro
Thermal extended due maintanace
Peak Load*
Comparison: Wholesale prices
Electricity price in major markets in EUEU-15 (EEX, NordPool)
NordPool) and new EUEU-10+
(Poland PX)
C o m p ariso n o f th e E lectricity P rice in M ajo r E lectricity Markets o f E U -15 an d
P o lish P o w er E xch en g e P o lP X (2002-2003)
So u r ce : EEG Datab an k
70
60
40
30
20
10
2
ov
.0
2
D
ez
.0
2
Jä
n.
03
Fe
b.
03
M
är
.0
3
A
pr
.0
3
M
ai
.0
3
Ju
n.
03
Ju
l.0
3
A
ug
.0
3
S
ep
.0
3
O
kt
.0
3
N
ov
.0
3
D
ez
.0
3
N
kt
.0
O
S
ep
.0
.0
2
2
2
02
l.0
ug
A
Ju
n.
Ju
M
ai
.0
2
2
2
pr
.0
A
02
är
.0
M
b.
Fe
n.
02
0
Jä
/MWh
50
Elspot (Av e rage , all days of a month)
EEX P he lix Pe ak
E EX Phe lix B ase
PolPX
Average wholesale electricity price 2002 [ /MWh]
Bottlenecks
Market
Separation
25
30
25
27
24
22
23
52
34
Average wholesale electricity price 2003 [ /MWh]
Bottlenecks
Market
Separation
39
37
27
33,2
32,8
53
31,3
25
33,2
31
32
Perspectives Market Concentration
Installed capacity of 14 major utilities in EUEU-25+ CC, Russia & Ukraine
Major utilities in EU-25+ CC, Russia & Ukraine in 2003
[GW]
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
TRANSMISSION
1st synchronous UCTE zone
2nd synchronous UCTE zone
Physical electricity exchanges in 2003 [GWh]
Source: UCTE
El
ek
tra
ne
Hu
ng
ar
y
M
VM
En
BW
Sl
ov
en
sk
e
IP
S
Ba
ltic
CE
Z
En
er
go
at
om
U
kr
ai
ne
be
l
El
ec
tra
En
de
sa
Po
Va
la
nd
te
nf
all
Eu
ro
pe
PS
E
E.
O
n
RW
E
EN
EL
re
st
*
Ed
F
Ru
ss
ia
UE
S
of
R
us
s
ia
0
Export and Import balance in January 2004
Source: UCTE
Net Export Countries
E = Export balance [MW]
Net Import Countries
I = Import balance [MW]
Baltic
Countries
E=776
Ukraine
E=466
BG
E=877
P
I=204
GR
I=330
Synchronous interconnection UCTE with the IPS/UPS system
Biggest World Electricity Market or new regional markets ?
•
•
The interconnection project is a part of EUEU-Russia energy dialogue - initiated
from the highest political levels
Between RO/BG and IPS/UPS new transmission lines +1100 MW in 2009
2009
IPS/UPS
system
Projected congestions
Delimitation of areas
48%
100 %
17%
UCTE
System
5%
23%
ELECTRICITY GENERATION FROM
RENEWABLES
Achieved & additional realisable potential (up to 2020) in EUEU-10 + CC
Achieved potential (end of 2001):
60
17.5 TWh (EU10+)
17.6 TWh (BG&RO)
Additional potential 2020
Achieved potential 2001
RES-E - Electricity
generation potential [TWh/a]
50
40
Additional potential (up to 2020):
116.7 TWh (EU10+)
62.15 TWh (BG&RO)
30
20
10
0
CY
CZ
EE
HU
LA
LT
MT
PL
SK
SI
BG
RO
Source: FORRES 2020
100%
Impact of RESRES-E: Achieved & additional realisable potential (up to 2020)
of RESRES-E in EUEU-10 + CC Source: FORRES 2020
Share of total
RES-E generation 2001 __
90%
Wind offshore
Wind onshore
Tide & Wave
Solar thermal electricity
Photovoltaics
Hydro small-scale
Hydro large-scale
Geothermal electricity
Biowaste
(Solid) Biomass
Biogas
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
EU12+
BG
RO
EU10+
SI
SK
PL
MT
LT
LA
HU
EE
CZ
CY
dominated by
large & small-scale hydropower
Additional potential (up to 2020):
Biomass (co-firing) and wind power
are most promising options
0%
100%
Achieved potential (end of 2001):
Wind offshore
Wind onshore
Tide & Wave
Solar thermal electricity
Photovoltaics
Hydro small-scale
Hydro large-scale
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
Geothermal electricity
Biowaste
(Solid) Biomass
Biogas
30%
20%
10%
EU12+
RO
BG
EU10+
SI
SK
PL
MT
LT
LA
HU
EE
CZ
0%
CY
Share of additional
generation potential 2020
90%
Impact of RESRES-E: Costs of electricity for new RESRES-E options
Overview: Cost ranges in EU25
countries
Source: GreenGreen-X
EU
Promising least-cost options for EU10+:
Biomass (co-firing), Biowaste, Landfill gas
… followed by
wind onshore, small- & large-scale hydropower
Wind offshore
Wind onshore
Tidal & wave energy
Solar thermal electr.
Photovoltaics
Hydro large-scale
Hydro small-scale
Geothermal elctr.
Biowaste
Biomass
Biogas
0
50
100
150
200
250
Costs of electricity (LRMC) [ /MWh]
Impact of RESRES-E: Scenarios on the future development
of RESRES-E in EU10+ Source: FORRES 2020
Share of RES-E
on total demand
(BAU-forecast) in 2020:
Baseline: ~11%
BESTBEST-scenario: ~21%
120
100
Share on total RES-E generation [%]
RES-E generation [TWh/year]
Best-scenario: Ambitious policies
Baseline: continuation of current policies
80
60
40
20
0
2001
2005
2010
2015
2020
Baseline
Best -scenario
Continuation of
current policies
Ambitious policies
(to overcome also
non-financial barriers)
100%
90%
Wind offshore
80%
Wind onshore
70%
Tide & wave
60%
Photovoltaics
50%
Hydro small-scale
Hydro large-scale
40%
Biowaste
30%
Solid biomass
20%
Biogas
10%
0%
2001 2010 2020 2010 2020
Impact of RESRES-E: Scenarios on the future development
of RESRES-E in EU10+ Source: FORRES 2020
New installations up to 2020:
Baseline: +11.8 GW
BESTBEST-scenario: +20.9 GW
Wind
onshore
1%
Solid
biomass
2%
Hydro
largescale
87%
20000
15000
Baseline:
continuation of
current policies
Best-scenario:
Ambitious
policies
10000
5000
0
2010
2020
Share on new RES-E installations [%] _
Hydro
smallscale
10%
25000
New installations (cumulative) [MW] _
Installed RES-E capacity
(end of 2001): 6829 MW
Baseline
Best -scenario
Continuation of
current policies
Ambitious policies
(to overcome also
non-financial barriers)
100%
90%
Wind offshore
80%
Wind onshore
70%
Tide & wave
60%
Photovoltaics
50%
Hydro small-scale
40%
Hydro large-scale
30%
Biowaste
20%
Solid biomass
10%
Biogas
0%
02-10 11-20 02-10 11-20
CONCLUSIONS
• In EU 10+ : CENTREL countries (CZ & PO) with
considerable excess capacities
• From data available: PO, BG, RO, UK, RU with
excess capacities up to 2015
• Renewable electricity generation potential: PO
(Biomass), BG (Hydro, Wind), RO (Biomass, Hydro)
• Major problem: TM capacities close to EU-15 border
-> New capacities required!
• Major open questions: Who will invest? How to
ensure revenues from investments?
How to transform the Athens Memoranda
into a legally binding agreement (ECSEE)
“Keeping the lights on”
through
Regional Energy Cooperation
co-sponsored by
February 2005
1
2
What is the Stability Pact for SEE?

Adopted on 10 June 1999 in
Cologne

Provides framework
for co-ordination
of over 40
countries and
organisations

Political
instrument
for long-term
conflict prevention

Aims to strengthen peace,
democracy and economic
prosperity in South Eastern
Europe (SEE)
3
The Athens Process aims at creating a
Energy Community SEE – Three steps
UCTE
Non UCTE
First “Athens” Memorandum
of Understanding on electricity
was signed in 15th Nov 2002
in Athens
NL
Synchronous
Borders
DK
ECSEE
UA
L
CZ
I zone
F
UPS
PL
D
B
EU25+
EEA+
SEE
Inclusion of Gas Market
at 8th December 2003
ministerial meeting
SK
MD
A
CH
HU
RO
SLO
participant
ECSEE
HR
BIH
P
II zone
SaM
BIH
BG
I
E
MK
AL
TK
GR
Int. legally binding agreement expected in 2005
Oil will be considered within the process located in Trieste
4
Economic Reconstruction, Development
and Cooperation through ECSEE
Secretariat
Athens
Vienna
Transition
Cooperation
ECSEE
Private Equity
Development
Athens MoUs
(Public) Loans
Reconstruction – Donor Coordination
Grants and donations
2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007
2008
5
Why Regional Energy Cooperation?
Peace and political stability needs economic
development and restructuring
Every economy is dependent on infrastructure
and (energy) services
A regional coordinated approach needs less
investment for a sustainable and secure supply
With a potential EU Membership of all countries
in SEE the direction is clear set
(chapter 14 of “accession negotiation”)
6
The Athens Process, now ECSEE
Involves the adoption by the SEE countries of the EU
Electricity, Gas and Environmental Directives, involving
among others,

opening of access for cross-border trades in
electricity and gas
The setting up in each country of an independent
energy regulator
Unbundling of generation, transmission and
distribution (at least in terms of management)
Comply with large combustion plant, environmental
impact assessment and sulphur content
7
Objectives of ECSEE
•
Larger market and predictable regulatory
environment will attract investment and
financing
•
Level playing field with fair conditions for all
groups of market participants
•
Increased reliability and security of systems
•
Greater efficiency and more competitive
prices
8
La
un
Re chin
gio g o
Fir nal S f Ath
st M tra en
s
t
Inv oU o egy P Proc
e
n
olv
em Elec aper ss
en
t o tricit
f
y
Inv
olv E Energ Mark
Se em C
con en Be y Ind et
d M t of nch ust
oU PM mar ry
CB
k
T m A on EnSenio ing in
La echa cces ergy r Adv clude
Re unch nis sion inc isor s S
m i of l. G s EE
co in
Tirnnec g of G n UC SLO as m
an tion a
aD
s In TEII and arke
HU t
ecl
itia
ara
tive
to
(No
EU
tion
n-h
Fu ouse
ll
h
Le Imple old /
ga m
lly en eligib
bin tatio le c
din n o us
g
f A tom
Op Agre then ers
en em s M
in
for g theent oUs
all
Wh
n Int
ole
Fu on-h ernal
ll o ou
sal
pe se Mark
eM
Ac
I
n
ces
ark tern ning hold et
e
a
o
s
an
d B ion o t thro l Mar f the
ugh ket
G t f RO
oE
SM
U
D?
Objectives of ECSEE (continued)
•
Enhanced transparency, greater market
discipline and lower corruption
•
Regional framework for determining critical
investments
•
Reduction in overall investment needs thanks
to enhanced national and regional strategies
•
Better integration of economic, energy and
social policies
9
The milestones for a Regional Energy
Market / Energy Community SEE
EU and its Internal market
The Athens Process
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
10
Co-ordination and Monitoring
Structures
Donors Group
International Financial
Institions (IFIs)
Bilateral Donors
(Countries)
Environment
EPSU
?
Political Infos/Seminars
Senior Advisors for
Energy and
Foreign Affairs
Of Prime Ministers
RENEUER?
EFET
EBRD
Task Force
11
Industry Roundtables
Transmission is the key to exchange
12
Legal reforms aiming at making energy
supply a fully commercial service
¾
energy supply must be paid for
¾
enable denial of supply to those who do not pay
¾
make theft of energy a criminal offence
¾
enable speedy recovery of areas
¾
must be sustainable
13
Tariff Reforms
•Tariffs should ensure full cost recovery
•Reduction of internal cross subsidies to the extent
possible
•Depoliticisation of tariff adjustments through the
establishment of a professional and independent
regulator
•Tariff unbundling helping to make price setting more
transparent
•Social protection measures for the targeted poorer
segments of society
14
The European Directives
on electricity and gas
• establish timetable for removing legal restrictions
on large consumers choosing their energy suppliers
• require “accounting unbundling” of the monopoly
from the potentially competitive parts of vertically
integrated companies
• require that access to the monopoly parts be
objective, transparent and non-discriminatory
15
The European Directives
on electricity and gas (continued)
•
restrict legal barriers to entry into electricity
generation or national gas facilities
•
require the designation of transmission system
operators with certain powers and obligations,
including independent management from other
businesses
•
environmental requirements for large combustion
plants, impact assessment and (sulphur) emissions
16
The Key importance of the
sequencing of reforms
Privatising the energy sector in transition countries in
advance of policy development and proper regulation poses
great risks to efficiency gains, consumer welfare and the
political acceptance of reforms.
Proper sequencing involves:
• Formulation of energy policies and rules for
implementing them, giving special attention to energy
efficiency and demand-side co-operation.
• Establishing appropriate legislative and regulatory
framework
• Preparing for privatisation through commercialisation
17
Commercialisation
Cutting the utility from routine annual budget support
and compel it to operate with revenues it generates.
Functional accounting to identify costs and revenues
by function.
Organising generation, transmission and distribution
functions by business units within the framework of the
existing company.
Evolving contract based relationships and transparent
transfer pricing among the business units.
18
Commercialisation (continued)
Developing meaningful internal and external audits and
disclosure procedures.
Compilation of clear, comprehensive and unambiguous
inventories of all real and fixed assets and debts.
Improve metering, billing and collection procedures
and mechanisms to monitor payment defaults and take
corrective actions
19
Much more than a
regional energy market
Energy Community
(South East Europe)
Different Levels and Scope of Titles
Extension Acquis
National level
Regional Energy Market
SEE plus
EU neighbours
SEE
Energy Community
Whole Europe
Single Regulatory Space
21
Electricity, natural gas and Oil
Electricity most advanced
Natural gas biggest potential
Oil is considered as a potential future part
New dimensions
Dialogue of Social Partners, extension of Acquis
Protection of vulnerable groups (ie. Kosovo)
Parliamentarian cooperation, trail for accession
procedures
Involvement of NGOs ie. on environment
22
The way ahead
Implementation of MoUs until July 2005
The Treaty will make both MoUs legally binding with conditions and

timetable for full market opening (latest 2015, 10 years duration)
Will include regional institutions (ministerial, forum, secretariat and
regional regulatory board)
Final negotiations beginning in February
Draft in principle agreed by Ministers in Dec 04
Signing in first half of 2005 through Energy Ministers
Adoption by the EU Ministerial Council
through Article 300
Possible usage of the G8 summit gathering in July to promote
transatlantic cooperation for developing and transforming crisis areas
Ratification Procedure in second half 2005 by SEE National
Assemblies
23
Potential Investments
Example Bulgaria EUR 6 bn till 2007
EVN (Austrian utility) paid 230 EUR/customer in BG
energy s a third of overall invest
Electricity 4.14 bn. Gas and oil 2bn, 0.4 bn in district heating
Trans-Adriatic Gas Pipeline (TAP) connecting Italy with the

Black Sea
(Electricity) Generation Investment Study (GIS) estimates
between 20 and 40 bn EUR depending on demand growth
scenario and which policy would be applied until 2020.
Albania-Macedonia-Bulgaria-Oil (AMBO) Pipeline around 2 bn
SECI Regional Tele-information-system (TI) missing 20 mn, but
would enable regional trade in real time
Kosovo: New IPP would need 1.4 bn EUR (= size of
consolidated budget)
24
More Information from
Athens Process Newsletter

www.seerecon.org/infrastructure/sectors/energy/newsletters.htm
Information data base sponsored by Czech Rep.
www.seenergy.org
Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe on energy
www.stabilitypact.org/energy
European Commission and World Bank (Joint Office/ISG)
www.seerecon.org/infrastructure/sectors/energy
US Agency for International Development (USAID) on Regulation
www.seerem.org or www.erranet.org
Southeast European Electrical System Technical Support Project
(Canadian Int. Dev. Agency, CIDA) www.seetec-balkans.org
25
DIW – BMWA Workshop “Perspectives and
Challenges of EU Electricity-Enlargement”
Activities of E.ON in Eastern Europe
Berlin, 17. - 18. February, 2005
Dr. Thomas Meyer
Head of Corporate Development for Central and Eastern Europe
Agenda
E.ON Energie – Central Europe
Growth potential in SEE
Envisaged future development
Strategy and success factors of E.ON Energie
Electricity market development in EU
Strategic and financial investors
Summary and conclusion
Presentation, DIW-BMWA Workshop, Feb. 17. – 18. 2005
Page 2
Agenda
Focus Region Central Europe
Page 3
E.ON Energie
Others - E.ON Group
in million
approx.
16 million
customers
EBITDA
€ 5 778
NL
B
269,4 TWh
power sales
132,3 TWh
gas sales
approx.
43 853
employees*
•32% outside Germany
Annual report 2003
PL
D
L
CZ
A
CH
Internal operating
Profit
SK
€ 3 058
H
RO
Sales
I
BG
€ 22 579
Page 4
Electricity: Through acquisitions and swaps E.ON Energie has
achieved a significant consolidated market share in the region
Czech Republic
ZCE
Czech Republic
2000
2004
SCE
VCE
SME
JCE JME
SME
JCE JME
Slovakia
Slovakia
Édász
E.ON Észak-dunántúli
Titász
E.ON Tiszántúli
Moldova
E.ON Dél-dunántúli
Dédász
Romania
Hungary
Romania
Hungary
Total Investment since 2000
Approx. € 1.7 billion
Bulgaria
Figures in the region 1)
2000
€ million 431
Sales
7.3
TWh
Power supplied
5.5
%
Market share
1.4
million
Customers
3,285
Employees
E.ON majority
E.ON minority
E.ON management lead
1) Shareholdings with E.ON Energie management lead. Region: CZ, SK, HU, BG
Oltenia
Gorna
2003
2,556
39.2
29.1
5.9
13,482
Varna
Bulgaria
Page 5
Gas: E.ON Energie well positioned to achieve majority
positions and power–gas convergence
Germany
Czech Republic
Poland
PP
STP
ZCP
JCP1)
JMP
Slovakia
SPP
(E.ON Ruhrgas)
Austria
Hungary
FĥGÁZ
Slovenia
KÖGÁZ
Croatia
DDGÁZ
Ukraine
Romania
Distrigaz North
(E.ON Ruhrgas)
Serbia
E.ON minority
E.ON management lead
1) Management lead together with OÖF.
Page 6
Agenda
Status of the privatization
Page 7
Installed capacity
Distribution
NL
PL
25 %
3%
37 %
15 %
CZ
SK1
A
0%
100 %
H
RO
~0%
19 %
65 % 100 %
Private companies: companies with a majority stake of the
state or municipalities are considered as not privatized
1
BG
11 %
100 %
Privatisation in process
Page 8
High investment need in SEE according the World Bank *
SEE: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia,
Macedonia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro
y Around 4500 MW (additional generating capacity)
60000
will be required over the next ten years, together
55000
50000
with the substantial rehabilitation of existing
45000
40000
plants (about 2.500 MW)
MW
35000
30000
y The associated financing requirement would be
25000
well in exess of 5 bn USD
20000
15000
y Additionaly also large investment in transmission
10000
5000
and distribution is necessary to meet security of
0
2001
2001
2012
supply as well as environmental standards
2012
Year
Hydro
Nuclear
Thermal
Non usable capacity
Peak load
Peak load + reserve
Usable capacity
y In 2005, according to the „Bank Austria
Creditanstalt“ the foreign direct investments
in SEE will be amounted 8,4 bn €
* World Bank-Study, Review of Electricity Supply and Demand in Southeast Europe, Copyright 2004
Page 9
Agenda
Page 10
Concentration on focus regions triggers optimization of
acquisition capital
Synergies and
advantages of scale
y Physical and economic synergies in adjacent regions
y Interconnection advantages and risk limitation through
integration of value chain in the regions
Terms and conditions
of the market
y Comparable political and regulatory terms and
conditions in the regions
Leading position
y Leadership as sole strategic investor
y Significant market share
y Entrepreneurial freedom for restructuring of assets
Balanced portfolio
y Balanced mix between developed and transforming
markets
Page 11
E.ON Energie is considering the creation of power generation
capacity as an asset-backing measure for existing distribution
and sales activities
Opportunities
NL
B
y Privatization (Bulgaria /
Romania)
PL
D
L
CZ
A
CH
SK
H
RO
y New development in
generation (HU, CZ, SK, RO,
BU) gas and coal
I
BG
Page 12
Agenda
Page 13
Criteria for the selection of projects
Strategic Criteria
Financial Criteria
y Market attractiveness
(returns, growth, regulation)
y Earnings enhancing in the first full year
after acquisition
y Political and economic stability
y Returns exceeding cost of capital three
years after acquisition
in general
y Target attractiveness
(asset quality, market position,
management quality)
y Not endanger Group performance
targets
y Value creation potential
(cost reduction, integration benefits,
transfer of best practice)
Page 14
E.ON Energie's success factors also applicable
in Central Europe East
PAI – Process
Best Practice
Decentralized Structure
y Conception during
M&A process
y Knowledge exchange
between subsidiaries
y Autonomous
subsidiaries
y Creating transparency
in Controlling
y Efficiency gains through
best practice processes
y Own Board of
Management for
subsidiaries
y Integration into E.ON's
overall strategy
y Setting high standards
for all Group members
y Close contact to the
local market
Integration
Cost leadership
Corporate governance
Page 15
Agenda
Page 16
The electricity costs (excluding all kinds of public issues) in the
medium- and long-term in all EU-Countries will be comparable
Reasons
Exception
y Comparable environmental standards
y Hydropower has advantages but without
a high practical relevance, due to limited
y Same fuel suppliers
expansion potential
y Labor costs have marginal relevance
y New generation capacity needed
y Improvement of the efficiency and
continuing growth of appropriate cross
board transmission lines
y Cross board trading development
y Lignite in selected locations
y As the case may be nuclear energy
(due to state intervention)
y Free allocation of emission certificates
y Other state issues of subventions
according ETSO-Directive
Increasing convergence of the wholesale prices
(without UK/Nordic Countries)
Page 17
Electricity Price in 2003: State Accounts for 41%
1
Average price for private customers :
17.12 ct/kWh
Sales tax
14%
Concession fee2
11%
Eco tax
12%
CHP & Renewables Acts
4%
80% of profits is eroded
by exceptional burdens.
Generation/
grids/sales
59%
Source: German Energy Industry Association (VDEW).
1 Electricity supplied to households; annual sales volume: 3,500 kWh.
2
Concession fee in cities with between 100,000 and 500,000 residents.
Page 18
Increase of cross board transmission capacity
Pro’s
Con’s
y Minimum size and number of
y The transport of electricity is unprofitable
market players needed to create
for distances greater than 250 km as a
functioning market
result of grid loss1)
y Artificial generation location (subsidized
y UCTE: More interconnectors mean more
wind power) create necessity for more
artificial trade which pressurizes the
transmission capacity e.g. German, the
system. This can lead to power cuts such
Netherlands
as that in Italy last year”. The UCTE
believes expanding interconnectors
endangers rather than protects supplies
y Erection of new generation capacity will reduce long distance transport foster the development
of liquid markets
y How to incentive and aspire increasing of new cross board capacity in the regulated market ?
1) Van Eck and Rodel, Delf University of Technology, November 2004
Page 19
Competition for assets (privatization, acquisitions)
Western utilities
Eastern utilities
y Know how (experience) in
y Lack of financial and transaction experience
liberalization process and transformation markets
y Financial capabilities
y Track record experience from
the deal development via the
acquisition until the integration process
y CEZ is the only exception on the
acquisition market
y Privatization in some countries slowed
down due to increased own financial
capabilities (e.g. Slovenia) and increasing
knowledge and self-confidence (Poland)
Western utilities dominate as acquirer of East European utilities
in privatizations and sales
Page 20
Agenda
Page 21
Targets of the strategic and financial investors
y Strategic investors
are interested in long term sustainable development, in
improving the company and the sector, and in an optimal
customers service.
y Financial investors
(Not multilateral banks (IFI) but commercial)
their target is normally a short term financial optimization.
They are NOT interested in the sector, company, employees and
the customers as such.
Page 22
Investors
Targets
Strategic
Financial
Financial
+
-
Interested in vertical
integration and
development of sector,
to booster a
sustainable profit
Cooperation period
They often cash-out
the target company
and/or sell essential
parts of the
company
0
+
(long term oriented)
(short/medium
term optimization)
Page 23
Targets - Company development
Investors
Strategic
Financial
Development of company and
cooperation
+
-
HR development und qualification
+
-
Best practice procedure, cost reduction,
sound commercial practice
+
0
Technological improvement
+
-
Public service obligation
+
0
Respect local specifics
+
0
Investments: available funds
+
+
Improving security of supply
+
0
Page 24
Agenda
Page 25
Summary
Large investment needs in CENTRAL - Central Europe East
y Ongoing privatization, liberalization and integration of electricity and gas
markets
y Rehabilitation and environmental requirements
y Necessity of additional generation capacity (medium term)
E.ON Energie
y Extensively involved in Central and Central Europe East
y Experienced in transformation and privatization processes
y A long term, reliable, private experienced, cash rich, strong strategic investor
y Respecting local politics and interests, sociopolitical responsibility, good
responsible employer
Page 26
Conclusion
y Dynamic and powerful process offers interesting chances for
strategic investors
y E.ON Energie is an excellent suited partner to guarantee a
positive development of the electricity and the gas market
and offers interesting chances for strategic investors
Page 27
Page 29
Backup
We focus on five core markets with strong E.ON positions
Market positions – power and gas
US-Midwest
Kentucky: No. 1 in power generation
with 47% ofMAIN
total 95 TWh
No. 1 in power/gas retail with
42% of total 2.8m cust.
Nordic
UK
No. 4 in power generation with 7%
of total 390 TWh
No. 3 in power/gas retail with 9%
of total 14m cust.
No. 2 in power generation with
11% of total 350 TWh
No. 2 in power/gas retail with 18%
of total 49m cust.
Pan-European gas
No. 1 in gas supply in
a total market of 4,740 TWh
Central Europe
No. 2 in power generation with 12%
of total 1155 TWh1,2
No.1 in power/gas retail with 20%
of total ~ 143m cust.1,2
1 Includes Germany, Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria
2 Includes minorities ≥ 20%
Source: E.ON
Page 30
E.ON Group: Electricity Sales of Leading European Utilities
Sales in Europe
bn kWh
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
570
341
300
184
EdF
Source: Annual reports of the companies 2003
E.ON
RWE
Vattenfall
163
137
ENEL
Suez
(Electrabel)
112
Endesa
Page 31
Our vision and mission
The success of the on.top project
E.ON will
y provide competitive solutions
for its customers, their lives
and businesses
y stay on top by being an
integrated power and
gas company
y combine international
strength with local focus
y apply the best ideas from
across the Group
P Be the world's leading
power and gas company
Page 32
All that glistens is not gold
y Financial investors sometimes offers the highest price
y Their target is normally a short term optimization
y Some are not interested in the long term sustainable development of
the company and sector
y They often cash-out the target company and/or sell essential parts of
the company
Page 33
ýEZ GROUP PRESENTATION
Vladimír Schmalz, Director of Mergers&Acquisitions
Challanges and Perpectives of EU Electricity Enlargement
Berlin
February 18, 2005
Vision of the ýEZ Group
To become the leader in the power markets
of Central and Southeastern Europe.
ýEZ GROUP
22
ýEZ Group is a Leading Corporate Name in
Emerging Europe

Successful player in the competitive European market – second biggest exporter of
electricity in Europe

Dominant power producer and supplier in the Czech Republic

Desulfurization program of TPPs

One of the largest publicly traded utilities in Central and East European Countries

First and one of the largest corporate bond issuers in emerging Europe

First rated and investment grade company in emerging Europe (currently Baa1/BBB+)

Stock regarded as a proxy for the Czech stock exchange market

5,3 mil. Customers in Czech Republic and Bulgaria

Constantly growing dividends have been paid since 2001
33
ýEZ GROUP
Share Price Performance
The Shareholders of ýEZ, a. s. as of December 31, 2004
National
Property Fund
(FNM ýR)
67.61%
360
340
320
Institutional
Investors
24.45%
Custodians
3.23%
Individuals
4.71%
300
CZK
280
Integrated ýEZ Group is
able to offer better services
and products to its
customers and at the same
time to profit from synergy
effects
260
240
220
200
180
160
Prague Stock Exchange in 2004
5.
1
19 .2 0
.1 04
.2
2. 00
2. 4
16 2 0
.2 04
.
1. 200
3. 4
15 2 0
.3 04
29 . 20
.3 04
13 . 20
.4 04
27 . 20
.4 04
11 . 20
.5 04
25 . 20
.5 04
.2
8. 00
6. 4
22 2 0
.6 04
.2
8. 00
7. 4
22 2 0
.7 04
.2
5. 00
8. 4
19 2 0
.8 04
.2
2. 00
9. 4
16 2 0
.9 04
1. . 20
1 04
15 0. 2
.1 00
0 4
1. .20
11 04
15 . 2
.1 00
30 1 .2 4
.1 00
14 1 .2 4
.1 00
29 2 .2 4
.1 00
2. 4
20
04
140
ýEZ GROUP
Share price of ýEZ
increased almost by 132% in
2004
Reasonable foreign
acquisitions enable
profitable growth of ýEZ
Group
44
Domestic Base as a Pre-requisite for Expansion
ýEZ Group’s Power Plants
2 NUCLEAR
16 COAL-FIRED
30 HYDRO
2 WIND
Installed capacity 12,297 MW
1,934 MW
16%
4 PUMPED STORAGE
1 SOLAR
3,760 MW
30%
SPÁLOV
LEDVICE II, III
ÚSTÍ n / Lab.- STěEKOV
LES KRÁLOVSTVÍ
TUŠIMICE II
MċLNÍK II, III
DVģR KRÁLOVÉ
nad LABEM
POýERADY
PRUNÉěOV I, II
POěÍýÍ II
NOVÝ HRÁDEK
HRADEC KRÁLOVÉ
ŽELINA
PěEDMċěICE
nad LABEM
MRAVENEýNÍK
OBěÍSTVÍ
PRAHA
DċTMAROVICE
PARDUBICE
CHVALETICE
VRANÉ
ŠTċCHOVICE I
ŠTċCHOVICE II
SLAPY
PLZEĕ
PASTVINY
PěELOUý
TISOVÁ I, II
HRACHOLUSKY
54%
6,603 MW
DLOUHÉ STRÁNċ I, II
PRÁýOV
OSTRAVA-VÍTKOVICE
KAMÝK
ORLÍK
DALEŠICE
MOHELNO BRNO- KNÍNIýKY
BRNO
ý ERNÉ JEZERO
KOěENSKO I
KOěENSKO II
HNċVKOVICE
ý EĕKOVA PILA
VYDRA
TEMELÍN
SPYTIHNċV
BRNO-KOMÍN
VESELÍ NAD
MORAVOU
HODONÍN
DUKOVANY
DUKOVANY
NAME IN ORANGE LETTERS = OWNED BY ýEZ, a. s.
NAME IN BLACK LETTERS = OWNED BY OTHER MEMBER
COMPANY OF ýEZ GROUP
LIPNO I, II
55
ýEZ GROUP
ýEZ Group – Selected Key Performance Indicators
Market capitalization (ýEZ‘s shares)
shares)
Index 1,00
Index
1.00
180
200
0.76
0,76
0.91
0,91
1.44
1,44
2,57
2.57
Added value
Index 1,00
1.00
35
3.37
160
1,08
1.08
1,04
1.04
1,29
1.29
1.06 (exp. 2004: 1.26)
2001
2002
2003
09/2004
30
100
120
25
CZK bn
150
CZK bn
140
100
80
20
15
60
10
40
50
5
20
0
0
0
2000
2000
2001
Cash from operations
Index 1,00
1.00
40
1,05
1.05
0,90
0.90
1,69
1.69
LongLong-term indebtedness
0.63
Index 1,00
0,84
0,68
0,50
0,67
30
30
Earnings per share (EPS)
Price earnings20ratio (P/E) *
Return on equity (ROE) net *
Return on total assets (ROA) net *
Assets turnover *
Total indebtedness (provisions excluded)
10
Long-term indebtedness
20
%
CZK bn
2000
20012002 2002 2003 2003 09/2004
09/2004 2004
10
0
Unit
September 30, 2003
September 30, 2004
CZK
1
%
%
1
%
%
10.3
9.9
5.5
3.2
0.29
30.9
11.6
17.2
15.3
6.5
3.6
0.36
26.2
15.0
0
2000
ýEZ GROUP
2001
2002
2003
09/2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
09/2004
66
ýEZ Group Basics 2004
Installed capacity
in the Czech Republic 17,434 MW (+0.5 % y/y)
Gross Electricity Production
in the Czech Republic 77,919 GWh (+1.6% y/y)
Other
suppliers
29%
Other
suppliers
26%
74%
71%
ýEZ, a. s.
70%
Others of
ýEZ Group
1%
ýEZ, a. s.
73%
Others of
ýEZ Group
1%
ýEZ Group‘s Final
Consumption Share
42%
ýEZ Group
58%
Other
suppliers
77
ýEZ GROUP
Investment Program
(without financial investments)
40
Capitalized interest
Net cash provided by
operating activities
35,8
Payments for nuclear
fuel
Distribution
35
28,8
30
27,1
24,1
Other nuclear power
23,4
25
22,3
CZK bn
21,0
19,5
20 18,3
15
18,2
19,4
18,3
18,8
21,7
20,0
22,2
Nuclear power Temelín
Environment
21,3
21,2
15,7 19,0
15,0
10,4
Performance upgrade
Waste treatment
10
Transmission system
5
Other projects
0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
ýEZ GROUP
Net cash provided by
operating activities
88
Current Model of the Electricity Market
in the Czech Republic
ýEZ
Regulator guarantees equal conditions
(regTPA) for all groups of market
participants, controls charges
for transmission and distribution
Transmission
(ýEPS)
Distribution
(REAS)
TSO procures
ancillary services
Independent
Power Producers
Captive
Customers
protected by the law
Regulatory
Office
Competitive
environment
in generation
Eligible
Customers
Import
Choice of supplier
Energy
Traders
Market
Operator
TSO balances and Market Operator
settles deviations between contracts
and real consumption
99
ýEZ GROUP
Wholesale prices of electricity in Europe
Wholesale prices of electricity for the year 2005 in the Czech Republic and neighbouring countries
+ 15%
+ 10%
CZK/MWh
948
Change (%)
2001
905
850
898
1,024
-4.5
- 6.1
+ 5.6
+ 14.0
2002
2003
2004
expectation
2005
plan
Slovakia
Poland
Export markets
+ 21%
+ 21%
Germany
Austria
+ 25%
Hungary
Import markets
Wholesale prices of electricity in the Czech Republic and Germany
2003 = 100%
150%
140%
130%
120%
110%
100%
2003
ýEZ GROUP
Germany
Czech
Republic
2004
2005
1010
Liberalization of Czech Electricity Market
100
Customers with annual consumption:
90
Households
80
Captive (protected) customers
have no right to choose their supplier
%
70
Other consumers
(excl. households)
60
50
Those with continuous
consumption metering
40
9 - 40 GWh
30
20
over 40 GWh
10
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
ýEZ serves 100 % of eligible customers
wholesale market opened overnight
1111
ýEZ GROUP
Harmonization Program with EU Rules
ýEZ Harmonization Program with EU Rules
energy market liberalization
1996
2002
2001
2006
2008
2004
Integration of ýEZ Group
Project „VIZE 2008“
Mergers & Acquisitions
Transformation of ýEZ
as the international
company
Renewal of
generation
sources
ýEZ GROUP
1212
ýEZ Group Expansion Plans
ýEZ‘s current
operation
Realized Acquisitions
Bulgaria (distribution)
Potential
acquisition
target
Proceeding Acquisitions
Romania (distribution)
Bulgaria (generation)
Central Europe
Other opportunities
Poland (generation)
Montenegro (generation+mining)
Romania (generation+distribution)
Macedonia
(generation+distribution)
Serbia
…
SE Europe
1313
ýEZ GROUP
ýEZ Group in Bulgaria (distribution + generation)
Russe
Possessed
distribution
companies
Pleven District Electric Power Distribution
Varna
Sofia Capital City Electric Power Distribution
Thermal Power
Plant – subject
of privatization
Bobov Dol
TPP
Sofia District Electric Power Distribution
ýEZ GROUP
Installed
capacity
(MW)
Bobov Dol
630
Russe
400
Varna
1,260
1414
ýEZ Group in Romania (distribution)
ýEZ has been approved
(by the decision of the Government)
a preffered bidder for Electrica Oltenia
on February 3, 2005.
Electrica Oltenia
number of customers: 1.36 m
electricity sold annualy: 6.8 TWh
ýEZ GROUP
1515
¤Siemens Power Generation 2004. All Rights Reserved
DIW-BMWA-Workshop
Market and Opportunities in the East
Siemens Power Generation
Siemens View on Power Generation Market in Eastern Europe
Modified Customer Structure
Siemens Power Generation Product Portfolio
Siemens in Eastern European Counties (Examples)

2005-02-18
Poland
Czech Republic
Hungary
Romania
DIW-BMWA Workshop, Opportunities in the East
Power Generation
1
Udo Schmid, PG W13.
Content
Power Generation Market in
Eastern Europe*
Power Generation Market [MW/a]
Retirements:
Hydro
Engines
2000MW/a
3.500
SPPs
3000MW/a
CCPPs
GTPPs
1800MW/a
3700 MW/a
+ 14 %/a
• Strongest growth
in Hydro and
Combined Cycle
Power Generation
3.000
2500 MW/a
2.500
2.000
+ 140 %/a
Renewables
• New installations
will exceed
retirements from
’07-‘09
1.500
900 MW/a
1.000
500
0
'01-'03
'04-'06
'07-'09
* Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Estonia, Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Poland, Romania,
Serbia&Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Hungry
2005-02-18
Power Generation
2
Udo Schmid, PG W13.
Modified Customer Structure
Liberalization creates uncertainty with customers (e.g. Poland); status of liberalization
differs widely between the countries
Mergers and Acquisitions by western Power Producers with global interests and
investment decisions
Example: Hungary
2002 Diversified Energy Production
1990 MVM Monopoly
MVM:
•
•
•
•
Fuel Supply
Power Generation
Power Transmission
Power Distribution
Source: Hungarian Energy Office
2005-02-18
Power Generation
3
Udo Schmid, PG W13.
Diversified power producers vs. single state owned power utility
Gas Turbines...Efficient, Reliable,
Cost-Effective
278
SGT5-4000F
266
SGT6-6000G
198
SGT6-5000F
188
SGT5-3000E
(V94.3A)
121
SGT6-3000E
SGT-1000F
68
45
SGT-800
SGT-800 (GTX100)
30
SGT-700
25
SGT-600
SGT-400 (Cyclone)
17
SGT-500
SGT-400
13
SGT-300
8
SGT-200
7
SGT-100
SGT5-4000F
163
SGT5-2000E
... Most
technologies to move technology levers
Figures inadvanced
net MW
5
2005-02-18
Power Generation
4
Udo Schmid, PG W13.
Steam Turbines ... Reflecting the
Latest Advances in Technology
SST5-9000
SST5-8000
SST5-6000
SST5-5000
SST5-4000
SST5-3000
SST5-1000
SST-900
SST-800
SST-700
SST-600
SST-500
SST-400
SST-300
SST-200
SST-100
2005-02-18
1900
1500 rpm
1100
1200
3000 rpm
700
300
250
200
150+
150
130
120
45”/42“ titanium
blade
Largest 50/60-Hz
exhaust cross
section currently in
operation
100
65
50
10
9
Efficiency
increase up to
2%-Points
thanks to
highly
advanced 3DS
Blades
Power Generation
5
Udo Schmid, PG W13.
…Continuously
updated to achieve maximum performance gains
Figures in MW
Reference Power Plants for
Large-Scale Power Generation
Steam Power Plants
Combined Cycle Power Plants
Single Shaft Power Plants
• SCC-1000F
• SCC5-3000E
• SCC5-4000F
100 MW Class
280 MW Class
400 MW Class
Multi Shaft Power Plants
•
•
•
•
SCC-1000F 2x1
SCC5-2000E 2x1
SCC5-3000E 2x1
SCC5-4000F 2x1
200 MW Class
500 MW Class
560 MW Class
800 MW Class
SSP5-5000 (2x350) former Varioplant 300
300-500 MW* Class Steam Power Plant
* Unit output
2005-02-18
Power Generation
6
Udo Schmid, PG W13.
SCC5-4000F Single-Shaft
SPP5-5000 (300-500 MW)
2005-02-18
Power Generation
7
Udo Schmid, PG W13.
Siemens Power Generation
Reference Power Plants
General Activities in Eastern Europe
Siemens Sp.z.o.o.
Warsaw
1.650 staff
Siemens s.r.o.
Praha
11.350 staff
Siemens s.r.o
Bratislava
2.250 staff
Siemens d.o.o.
Ljubliana
450 staff
Siemens Rt.
Budapest
1.450 staff
Siemens d.d.
Zagreb
1.300 staff
Siemens has Regional Entities in each Country
Siemens S.R.L.
Bukarest
750 staff
Representative Office
Siemens A.E
Skopje
Siemens EOOD
Sofia
150 staff
Bindi s.b.h.
Siemens Representative
Office; Tirana
Stronger Involvement and Assistance during Project Development Process
Participation in Feasibility Studies
Support in Project Financing via Siemens Financial Services
2005-02-18
Power Generation
8
Udo Schmid, PG W13.
Installed Electricity Generation Capacity (GW)
Market Situation
30
25
Hydro
20
Coal
15
10
5
Source: DOE/EIA
19
99
20
00
19
98
19
97
19
95
19
96
19
94
19
93
19
92
19
91
19
90
0
Age Structure by PP Type [in MW] - Total 23 227 MW*
Source: Siemens Database
5000
4565
4500
3980
4000
4100
3960
3500
3262
MW
3000
2500
2000
1320
1500
1080
1000
500
600
360
0
0-5
2005-02-18
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
Large overcapacity (25-30%)
High # of old and ineffective plants (2/3
in need for modernization)
Majority fueled by domestic coal
(>90%)
Significant environmental problems
Limitations due to grid capacities
Cancellation of existing PPA‘s
Siemens Activities
Source: Allen&Overy
Reference Plant designed for polish
market needs
Introduction of proven Siemens
CCPP Technology in Poland
Modernization of LMZ Turbines
Local engineering via Modelpol
Generator Manufacturing and
Service with Energoserwis
>41
Siemens Activities in Poland
Power Generation
9
Udo Schmid, PG W13.
Installed power capacity in CR
Market Situation
(Source: ERU - Energy Regulatory Office)
Com bine d Cyc le
763 MW - 4 ,4 %
Wind
31 MW - 0,2 %
Currently 20% overcapacity with no short
term requirements for additional capacity
Mid/Long term replacement of aging Steam
Power Plants by CEZ or IPP‘s (e.g. Appian)
Strong local power plant Contractor (Skoda
Prag) and Steam Turbine Manufacturer
(Skoda Power)
Hydro Po w e r Plants
21 50 MW - 12,4 %
N
Nuc le a r Pow e r Plants
3 760 MW - 21 ,7 %
Siemens Activities in Czech Republic
The rma l po w e r Plants
10 62 1 MW - 61,3 %
Total:
Siemens Activities
17 325 MWe
Use Local manufacturing of industrial
steam turbines in Brno
Successful installation of one GT and I&C
for Teplarny Brno
Keep momentum and market penetration
from Alstom Industrial acquisition
Source: Fost&Sullivan
2005-02-18
Power Generation 10
Udo Schmid, PG W13.
Installed Electricity Generation Capacity (GW)
Hydropower
6
Nuclear
Thermal
Market Situation
Allowance for approx. 20% energy
imports
Cheap import energy from Ukraine (2035 /MWh)
Mainly construction of small CHP
Plants < 50MW
New large CCPP plants not bankable
to to high gas and low el. energy prices
5
4
3
2
1
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
0
Siemens Activities
1910
2000
1760
MW
1500
1000
STPP
NPP
CCPP
626
553
440
500
120
0
2005-02-18
0-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
Successful in 1990‘s with Dunamenti
G1/G2 Projects and Lörenci peak
power plant
Modernization of LMZ Steam Turbines
Modernization of I&C Systems (e.g.
Matra)
Participation on small CHP projects
with new industrial turbine portfolio
Power Generation 11
Udo Schmid, PG W13.
Siemens Activities in Hungary
Total installed capacity: 21.100 MWe
Total available:
High annual retirement rate
1050
706
2798
5900
1482
7840
Market Situation
Siemens Activities in Romania
~14.800 MWe Most thermal power plants older than
30 years
Extremely low availability of installed
fleet
Liberalization started, distribution
1320
companies on the way to be
privatized
Oil & Gas (State-owned)
Oil & Gas (Municipal CHP)
Coal (State-owned)
Coal (Municipal CHP)
Hydro
Industrial PP
Nuclear
Siemens Activities
Cooperation with existing local
players
Assist in project development
Business development:
Industry: (Products / projects /
services)
Î 200 Siemens machines installed
- Gas Turbines
- Steam Turbines
- Compressors
Municipal CHP: (Rehabilitation
projects / new CHPs)
Large power plants:
Source: Siemens Romania
2005-02-18
(Rehabilitation / repowering projects /
new lignite-fired PPs and CCPPs)
Power Generation 12
Udo Schmid, PG W13.
Competitive Power Generation with
Proven Plants
S
Your Partner for
One-Stop Power
Solutions
2005-02-18
Power Generation 13
Udo Schmid, PG W13.
EFET Deutschland – Verband
Deutscher Gas- und Stromhändler e.V.
Flottwellstrasse 4...5
D - 10785 Berlin
[email protected]
Objectives
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Free Pan European Internal Market
Reliability of Supply
Competitiveness of the European Economy
Objectiveness, Transparency, Non-Discrimination
Interoperability of Transmission Systems
Common Rules for Transmission System Operation
Unimpeded System Access
Unbundling
Avoidance of abuse of dominant position or predatory behaviour
3
Regulations and Restrictions
for Electricity Trade
within the Enlarged European Union
Klaus G. Krämer, EFET Deutschland, Berlin
DIW-BMWA-Workshop
Challenges and Perspectives of EU Electricity Enlargement
Berlin, 17./18.02.2005
1
Directives, Regulations, Decisions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Directive for Electricity Transits 90/547/EWG
Electricity Market Directive 96/9 /EG
New Electricity Market Directive 003/54/EG
Energy Tax Directive 003/96/EG
Decision Implementing a Group of Regulators 003/796/EG
Regulation Cross-Border Trading Network Access 003/1
/EG
Market Abuse Directive
A Perfect Set-Up?
4
The „Free“ Internal Market:
Obstacles, Obstacles, Obstacles .......
...... and a Complete Lack of Transparency
Major Trading Obstacles
– Local Licences
– Balancing
– Scheduling
– Auctions
– Master Contracts
5
Trading Obstacles
Local Licences
• Regulations are Different in each Country
• 1:1 Nominations Required at many Borders, e.g.
–
–
–
–
D – CZ
D–A
A – SLO
A – HU
• Necessity to have a Balacing Contract in each Country
– Local Licence
– Co-Operation with Incumbent
6
Trading Obstacles
Local Licences
• Barriers for New Entrants
– Requirement to use Local Language for Contracts, Negotiations etc.
– Requirement to set up a „Permanent Establishment“
– Set-Up of Operations may take up to 6 Months
– Extremely High Costs of Set-Up
7
Trading Obstacles
Balancing
• Lack of Transparency
– Market for Balancing Energy does not exist
– „Black Box“
– High Financial Risk for New Entrants
• Permanent Changes of Regulations
– Changes are Issued in Local Language only
– Changes are Changed sometimes before Translation is Completed
8
Trading Obstacles
Scheduling
– Different Scheduling Formats
– Different Technical Requirements
– Different Security Standards
• Extreme Expenditures Necessary
– Hardware & Software
– Lack of Standardisation
– Extreme Workforce Requirements
9
Trading Obstacles
Auctions
• Different Rules
– Time of Auctions
– Periods of Capacity Allocation
– Lack of Transparency
• Different Capacity Calculations
– Lack of Standard Algorithms
• Different Levels of Co-Ordination
– Examples: PL – D; D – F; F – B – NL
10
Trading Obstacles
Master Contracts
• Advantages of Standard Contracts
– Reduction of Transaction Costs
– EFET Master Agreements
– ENRON Example
• Problems in New EU Member Countries
– Local Language Requirements
– Demanded Amendments to Proven Standards
– „Beer Mat Economy“ – A Question of Habit
– Lack of Transparency Supports Profiteering
11
Conclusions
• The Common Internal Market is Light Years Away
• Different Status of Market Liberalization
• Lack of Transparency
• Lack of Harmonisation and Standardization
• Market Distortions Due to Preference of Renewables
• Discrimination of New Market Entrants
• Abuse of Dominant Positions
• Profiteering
12
It‘s still a long way to go, so let‘s start now!
We appreciate your co-operation!
Thank you for your attention !
[email protected]
13
www.ifed.biz
Cross-Border-Trading - theory and practice
Alternative scenarios for managing congestion
and capacity allocation around the borders of
Germany
Rüdiger Winkler
IfED Institute for Energy Services GmbH, Heidelberg
www.IfED.biz
IfED E-World 2004
www.ifed.biz
©IfED 2003
©IfED 2003
IfED E-World 2004
www.ifed.biz
IfED offers a variety of services by networking with
experts
Energiewirtschaftliche Studien
und Gutachten
Verbände-/Politikberatung
•Politmonitoring
•Betreuung from Verbands-Themen
•Netznutzungsfragen
•Beratung Verbandsorganisation
•Erneuerbare Energien/Wärmepumpen/
EnEV
•Veranstaltungskonzeption
•Wetbewerbsfragen
Verbände/politische Institutionen
Streitschlichtung/Mediation
Publikationen
•Netznutzung
•Netzanschluss erneuerbare Energien
Netzkunden
•Fachartikel
Netzbetreiber
Industrie
Veranstaltungsservice
Gleichbehandlungsprogramme
Unternehmensberatung
•Infotage
•Nachweis der Nich-Diskriminierung
•Kongresse
•Berichtserstellung für die REGTP
•Online-Kongresse
IfED E-World 2004
www.ifed.biz
©IfED 2003
CBT-Survey
IfED Institute for Energy Services GmbH,
Heidelberg on behalf of
MVV AG, Mannheim
Statkraft Markets GmbH, Köln
rpg Energiehandel GmbH, München
Entrade GmbH, Berlin
Kom-Strom AG, Leipzig
Citiworks AG, München
©IfED 2003
•Unbundling
•Benchmarking
•Inhouse-Seminare
IfED E-World 2004
www.ifed.biz
Targets of the survey
1. Description of the legal framework
2. Technical analysis of capacities at
the German borders and beyond
3. Enquiry of allocation and practice
4. Development of recommendations
for regulatory authorities and TSO
5. Political interaction and basic
strategy
IfED E-World 2004
www.ifed.biz
©IfED 2003
Examinated borders
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
©IfED 2003
Denmark (West) to / from Germany
Schweden from / to Germany (HGÜ)
Niederlande from / to Germany
Belgium from / to Niederlande
France from / to Belgium
France from / to England
Germany from / to France
Switzerland from / to France
Switzerland from / to Germany
Austria from / to Switzerland
Austria from / to Germany
Czech Rep. / Poland to Germany
Czech Rep. from Germany
Czech Rep. to / from Poland
Czech Rep. to / from Slovakia
Czech Rep. to / from Austria
Poland to / from Slovakia
Hungaria to / from Slovakia, Austria, Ukraina,
Romania, Serbia und Croatia
Denmark to / from Germany (HGÜ)
IfED E-World 2004
www.ifed.biz
Guidelines for congestion management in
the annex of directive 1228/2003
Congestion management methods shall solve short-run
congestions in a market-based economically efficient
manner
Methods shall provide signals or incentives for efficient
network and generation investment
TSO´s shall publish standards for non-discriminatory and
transparent methods for congestion management
Different treatment of the different types of cross-border
transactions shall be kept to a minimum
Price signals that result from congestion management
systems shall be directional
TSO´s shall offer transmission capacity that is as firm as
possible
Congestion management procedure with significant
effects on power flows in other networks may shall not
devised unilaterally
IfED E-World 2004
www.ifed.biz
©IfED 2003
Transmission system congestion
A congestion exists if the
operational (n-1) criterion cannot
be satisfied as a result of the load
flow on the network under
consideration
A congestion also exists if the TSO
has well-founded grounds to
expect that the (n-1) criterion
cannot be satisfied if all registered
or forecasted schedules are
accepted
Source: VDN, Berlin
©IfED 2003
IfED E-World 2004
www.ifed.biz
Definition of „congestion“ in the German
Transmission Code depending on n-1 rules
The n-1 security rule is satisfied if the following effects can be excluded
after forced outgages:
Permanent violations of limiting values of network operation variables
and equipment loading that may endanger the security of system
operation or lead to damage to equipment or to an unacceptable
strain an equipment
Interruptions of supply in spite of the use of redundancies temporarily
available in lower voltage networks an in installations of the
transmission system users
Secondary tripping through activation of further protection devices
on equipment not directly affected by the disturbance, involving the
risk of spreading the disturbance
Loss of stability of generating units
Need to change or –if necessary- interrupt power transfers
Only balancing (netting) export and import schedules can prove if a
deviation from the n-1 security rule occurs, i.e. if there is a congestion
IfED E-World 2004
www.ifed.biz
©IfED 2003
Publishing of congestions
Congestions are usually published by the TSOs
concerned on their Internet sites including a
statement of reasons and through immediate
notification to the BGMs.
Publications on congestions include the
following information:
· transmission direction in which the congestion occurs
· forecasted duration
· method of congestion management (short, medium,
long term), e. g. auction
· capacity of the corresponding interface available to
the market
Source: German Transmission Code 2003
©IfED 2003
IfED E-World 2004
www.ifed.biz
Methods for congestion management
Source: ETSO
www.ifed.biz
©IfED 2003
IfED E-World 2004
Day ahead principle using NTC and ATC in
the NORDEL-area
Source: ETSO
©IfED 2003
IfED E-World 2004
www.ifed.biz
Significance of NTC
All TSO´s apply to ETSO rules
when calculating the Net
Transfer Capacity (NTC)
In some cases definition of NTC
possibly includes exchange
programs
The effects of interactive
dependencies of this factor are
not considered and described
by ETSO
For that reason the real values
can diverge from the published
ERGO: Final judgment needs all
exchange datas at a
given time
www.ifed.biz
©IfED 2003
IfED E-World 2004
Two different worlds?
At the German borders congestions existed at the
end of 2003 only to Denmark and the Netherlands –
in 2004 in addition to the Czek Rep.
Harmonised auctions are applied
Methods for congestion management are
consistent in the EU
Most common is allocation by explicit auctions
Inconsistent and partly intransparent is the
application of allocation methods between
eastern interconnectors
©IfED 2003
IfED E-World 2004
www.ifed.biz
Suggestions for improvement
Published NTC´s are not comprehensible
Suggestion for improvement:
Acces to the calculation of congestions or calculation by third
party
Resulting schedules are mostly not published on the
internet
Publishing of the hourly schedules by all TSO
Use of auctioning revenues is only transparent when the
location (equipment) ist known
Publishing of the precise „location“ of congestion
www.ifed.biz
©IfED 2003
IfED E-World 2004
Suggestions for improvement
Transfer of not-used capacity is not common. Not usedcapacity is newly auctioned by TSO (double revenue!)
Trader are allowed to transfer capacity to a third party
There is no balancing of schedules at some borders. Thus
congestions are charged even though the balanced
schedule is below the available capacity
Balancing of schedules and payments only in real congestion
situations
©IfED 2003
IfED E-World 2004
union for the co-ordination of transmission of electricity
Extension of the electricity transmission systems in Europe:
The UCTE – IPS/UPS study
DIW-BMWA Workshop
„Perspectives and Challenges of EU Electricity-Enlargement“
Berlin, 18 February 2005
Dr. Matthias Luther
Union for the Coordination of Transmission of Electricity
UCTE, 15 Boulevard Saint-Michel, 1040 Brussels, Belgium, [email protected]
Presentations Themes
¾ UCTE – a short profile
¾ Electricity system developments in Europe
¾ UCTE-IPS/UPS Feasibility Study state of play
DIW – BMWA Workshop, 18 February 2005
Dr. Matthias Luther
Page 2
UCTE overview: key figures 2003
¾ Transmission System Operators
34
¾ European Countries
23
¾ Customers
450 mil.
¾ Installed capacity
530 GW
¾ Electricity consumption/year
2300 TWh
¾ Electricity exchanges betw. countries/year 270 TWh
¾ Length of high voltage lines
210.000 km
Dr. Matthias Luther
Page 3
From a „club“ to a „system watchdog
association“
¾ 1951: UCPTE members were representatives of
companies
¾ 1996: UCPTE membership changed to
interconnected companies
¾ 1999: „P“ was dropped and UCTE became a TSO
association
¾ 2001: UCTE gained civil status transforming itself to
an International Association (AISBL acc. to Belgian
law) with a permanent secretariat in Brussels
Dr. Matthias Luther
Page 4
UCTE ahead of European integration
1951 UCPTE Founding Members A, B, F, FRG,
I, L, NL, followed by connection of DK
1987 P, E, YU, GR membership,
AL connected
1995 PL, CZ, SK, H (CENTREL)
synchronised
1996 RO, BG connected to 2nd zone
2004- Launching a
broad feasibility
study on IPS/UPS
1997 – Maghreb, 2003
– West Ukr. connected
2003 „Road Map“ for
interconnection TR
2004 investigations to
interconnect East
Mediterranean
Dr. Matthias Luther
Page 5
UCTE-IPS/UPS study The challenge: One “Heart beat” from Lisbon to Vladivostok
The worlds largest synchronous system:
¾13 time zones
¾ approx. 850 GW installed capacity
¾approx. 700 million customers
power systems of UCTE
power systems of IPS/UPS
other power systems
Dr. Matthias Luther
Page 6
Facts and framework of the project
¾The project is in itself another milestone in the history of UCTE
¾The study is a joint project mastered by UCTE facing the request for
synchronous interconnection from the Electric Power Council of CIS
¾Feasibility study for a full synchronous interconnection of IPS/UPS
Identify necessary measures and related investments for adaptation
of systems on both sides
¾Comparison of investments for each party in relation to other
feasible variants (e.g. hybrid, asynchronous)
¾Apart from the technical aspects: The project is a significant political
venture for the EU-integration of Baltic States and CIS countries
Initial
Initialpriority:
priority:maintaining
maintainingthe
thepresent
presentperformance
performanceof
ofthe
the
UCTE
system
in
respect
of
system
security
and
reliability
UCTE system in respect of system security and reliability
Dr. Matthias Luther
Page 7
UCTE-IPS/UPS study – three major questions to answer
Considering technical, operational, organizational and legal
issues the study will answer the following questions:
¾ Is a full synchronous interconnection of IPS/UPS with
UCTE feasible?
¾ What are the mandatory requirements on both sides?
¾ What are the associated costs?
Additionally, market aspects and environmental issues are
building the conditional framework
Dr. Matthias Luther
Page 8
The UCTE-Consortium: a close cooperation among the
parties concerned
The UCTE Consortium consists of 11 Transmission System Operators:
e.on
ELIA
MAVIR
RTE
Vattenfall
SEPS
other
TSOs
Dr. Matthias Luther
Page 9
UCTE-IPS/UPS study - project organization
Project Representative
Board
Project Management
Board
WG 1:
Steady State
Analysis
WG 2:
System
Dynamics
Project Manager
WG 3:
Power System
Control
WG 4:
Operation and
Organization
WG 5:
Legal Aspects
Organizational &
Operational
Aspects
Legal Aspects
Technical Aspects
Dr. Matthias Luther
Page 10
prestudy
phase
ToR
TEN-E
Application
Building
up of
consortium
Cooperation
Agreement
Phase 1
Model
Preparation
Phase 2
Verification
and Simulation
Project kick-off
verification of
models
survey of IPS/UPS
system
power system
simulations
installation of WAMS
sensitivity analyses
power system
measurements
data collection
preparation of models
2007
Phase 3
Assessment
and Results
further analysis
evaluation of results
identification of
measures and their
costs
presentation of results
preparation of draft of
final report
2
Fi 008
na
lR
ep
or
t*
2006
on
c
R ept
ep u
or al
t*
2005
C
01
.0
4.
20
04
UCTE-IPS/UPS study – preliminary time schedule
poststudy
phase
final
report
final accounting
end of
project
*Intended target dates
Dr. Matthias Luther
Page 11
UCTE-IPS/UPS study: Pre-project status
¾ Terms of Reference (ToR) approved by the UCTE
deciding bodies
¾ Application for financial aid submitted under the
Trans European Networks programme in April 2004
¾ Consortium Agreement signed
¾ Cooperation Agreement with IPS/UPS under negotiation
¾ Project kick-off foreseen for April 2005
Dr. Matthias Luther
Page 12