INOGATE Status Report:Progress in the Energy Field
Mr. Andrii Mitsai, Regional Coordinator of Country Experts’ GroupBrussels, 29‐30 November 2012
E n e r g y C o o p e r a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e E U , E a s t e r n E u r o p e , t h e C a u c a s u s a n d C e n t r a l A s i a
www.inogate.org
Status Report: Why?
Astana Energy Road Map requirement
To follow‐up progress made by Partner Countries
To create baseline to evaluate future progress
To understand Partner Countries’ priorities
To evaluate INOGATE programme support
To assess country needs and priorities for further INOGATE support
To provide support to Partner Countries
Status Report 2011: Methodology
Definition of ‘indicators’ and ‘criteria’
Country profiles: detailed desk‐based research on all INOGATE Partner Countries and validation of findings with CCs and WGMs during visitation Programme
Allocation of ‘indicators’ based on the findings
Consultation with partner countries secured at every stage
Indicators and Criteria principles
Indicators derive directly from the Energy Road Map
EU Energy Acquis used when Road Map offered no clear ‘indicators’
EU energy Acquis and practice was used for assessment criteria
Categories: Advanced
BasicDeveloping
Mature
Indicators (1)
Third party access (Electricity/Gas) Unbundling (Electricity/Gas) Independent energy regulators Technical rules Integrated regional markets
1st Area: Energy Market Convergence
Maintenance Rehabilitation/Upgrading New energy infrastructures Metering and billing
2nd Area: Energy Security
Indicators (2)
Political commitments and adopted strategy orpolicy
EE/RES framework development EE/RES action plans and measures Creation of Energy Agencies Environmental assessments-energy auditing-
environmental standards Kyoto Protocol mechanisms Gas flaring reduction
Investment framework Investment climate Investment planning
3rd Area: Sustainable Energy Development
4rd Area: Investment Attraction
Definition of indicators and criteria for evaluation Example 1: «Unbundling»
Unbundling: structural separation between transmission activities and production/supply activities of vertically integrated companies.
‐ No unbundling of TSO/DSO is in place; ‐ Financial unbundling: unbundling of
accounts of TSO/DSO is in place;‐ Legal unbundling: TSO/DSO are legally
separated undertakings (usually through a process of corporatisation), but still not yet fully in line with the requirements of the EU Acquis;
‐ Ownership unbundling: legal and ownership unbundling is in place being fully in line with the principles of the EU Acquis.
BasicDeveloping
Advanced
Mature
Definition of indicators and criteria for evaluation Example 2: «Third Party Access»
Third Party Access (TPA): a policy that require owners of natural monopoly infrastructure facilities (i.e. transmission and distribution networks) to grant a transparent access to those facilities to third parties to be applied objectively and without discrimination between system users.
‐ TPA is limited or non‐existent;
‐ TPA is foreseen, but restrictions on transparency or principle of non‐discrimination;
‐ TPA exists, however present practice does not yet fully comply with requirements of EU Acquis;
‐ TPA exists and present practice fully complies with requirements of EU Acquis.
Basic
Developing
Advanced
Mature
Summary of findings
Conclusions• Progress has been achieved in all indicators• Best cases noted: Georgia, Kazakhstan and Moldova
(almost all “developing” & 10 “advanced”)• Regulatory body exists in 7 out of 11 partner countries• Clear progress in harmonising standards and rules with
those of the EU • Transit countries (Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine) and
some energy producing countries (Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) have interest in creating regional energy markets
• 15 cases found to be “advanced”: – Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan and Moldova (TPA/Unbundling), – Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine (Unbundling in electricity sector) – Moldova in energy regulation
1st Area: Energy Market Convergence
Summary of findings1st Area: Energy Market Convergence
Example 1:1
Average household prices for electricity and gas in 2011Country Electricity (€/kWh) Gas (€/Gj)Armenia €0.05 €5.20
Azerbaijan €0.06 €2.90Belarus €0.02 €2.12Georgia €0.07 €6.36
Kazakhstan €0.04 €1.29Kyrgyzstan €0.02 €8.10
Moldova €0.08 €7.80Tajikistan €0.01 €4.39
Turkmenistan Free (<35kWh/person/month) Free(<50m3/person/month)
Ukraine €0.02 €2.10Uzbekistan €0.035 €0.94
EU-27 €0.18 €17.77
Summary of findings1st Area: Energy Market Convergence
Country ISO CEN/CENELEC COOMET EASCArmenia YES YES YES YES
Azerbaijan YES YES YES YESBelarus YES YES YES YESGeorgia YES YES YES YES
Kazakhstan YES NO YES YESKyrgyzstan YES NO YES YES
M oldova YES YES YES YESTajikistan YES NO YES YES
Turkmenistan YES NO NO YESUkraine YES YES YES YES
Uzbekistan YES NO YES YES
Example 1:2
Standardisation Bodies – Membership Status
Summary of FindingsArea 1 Tabulation
Electricity Sector Gas Sector Electricity
Sector Gas Sector
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Georgia
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Moldova
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
Uzbekistan
Independent Energy
regulatorsTechnical rules Integrated regional
markets
1st Area of Cooperation: Energy market convergence
Third party access Unbundling
Developing BasicDeveloping
BasicBasic Basic Basic Basic
BasicBasic Basic Basic
Advanced Developing Developing Developing
Developing Developing Developing
BasicBasic Basic
Advanced
BasicBasic Basic Basic
BasicBasic Basic Basic Basic
Developing BasicDeveloping
Basic Basic Developing Developing
Developing
Basic
Developing Developing Developing Developing
Advanced
Developing
Developing
Advanced
Basic
Basic
Advanced
Advanced
Basic
Advanced
Basic
Basic
Developing Basic
Basic
Advanced Basic
Basic
Basic
Advanced Advanced
Advanced
Advanced Basic
Basic
Basic
Advanced Basic
Developing
Developing Advanced
Advanced
Summary of findings
• Progress has been achieved in all indicators• Three “advanced” cases in maintenance: Armenia, Belarus
and Moldova• Over 72% of partner countries’ cases are assessed as
‘developing’• Vast majority of Partner Countries are maintaining or
developing energy infrastructure• Some Partner Countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia,
Kazakhstan, Ukraine) are expected to become “advanced” soon
• Some countries’ maintenance‐rehabilitation‐new infrastructure is underdeveloped due to inadequate investment funding
2nd Area: Energy Security
Transmission Distribution Transmission DistributionArmenia 1,5% 13,0% 3,5% 2,0%
Azerbaijan under 10% up to 20%Belarus 0,5% n/aGeorgia 2,0% n/a 0,5% n/a
KazakhstanKyrgyzstan 6-7% 15-17%
M oldova up to 3% 10,4-13,6% 0,2% 4,9%Tajikistan
Turkmenistan n/a n/a n/a n/aUkraine 2,3% n/a
Uzbekistan up to 30% including commercial losses 2.11% 2.40%
Losses status in Partner CountriesElectricity GasCountry
9-10%
5,4% Some regions distribution losses up to 30%.
12,0%
about 20%
17-18% up to 17%
up to 9%
Summary of findings2nd Area: Energy Security
Example 2:1
Summary of findings2nd Area: Energy Security
Example 2:2
Metering Collection rate Metering Collection rateArmenia 100% close to 100% 100% close to 100%
Azerbaijan about 90% 93% about 98% over 70%Belarus n/a - most consumers close to 100% 100% close to 100%Georgia 100% over 95% n/a - good 85%
Kazakhstan 100% 98% 70% domestic-100% industry 98%Kyrgyzstan 100% low 90-98% close to 100%
M oldova 100% 100% 85% 100%Tajikistan 100% 85-95% 97-100% close to 100%
Turkmenistan 100% free up 35 kWh/pers./m free up 50m3 per pers./m free up 50m3 per person/month
Ukraine 100% 98% 87% 92%Uzbekistan 100% 89% 73% 57.9% domestic-96.1% industry
Metering and billing status in Partner Countries
Country Electricity Gas
Summary of FindingsArea 2 Tabulation
Summary of findings
• Rated ‘developing’, if not ‘fast growing’• Clear political commitments by almost all countries• Framework is under development in the majority of countries• ‘RES/EE measures/action plans’, ‘Energy Agencies’ and
‘Environmental Assessment & auditing’ underdeveloped –anticipated development in next years
• Kyoto protocol: Countries either “developing” or “advanced”: Armenia‐Azerbaijan‐Georgia‐Moldova‐Ukraine‐Uzbekistan
• 4 “advanced” cases in Kyoto protocol: Armenia, Georgia, Ukraine and Uzbekistan
3rd Area: Sustainable Energy Development
Summary of findings3rd Area: Sustainable Energy Development
Example 3:1
Country Commitment Strategy/PolicyArmenia Yes National Programme for Renew ables & Energy Eff iciency
Azerbaijan Yes State Programme for Renew ablesBelarus Yes National Programme on Energy Eff iciency/Law on Renew ablesGeorgia Yes State Programme for Renew ables
Kazakhstan Yes Law on supporting the use of Renew ablesKyrgyzstan Yes National energy programme/Strategy for fuel & energy sector development
Moldova Yes National energy strategy/Law on energy eff iciencyTajikistan Yes Programme for use of renew able energy
Turkmenistan No No specif ic policy or programmeUkraine Yes National energy strategy
Uzbekistan Yes No specif ic policy or programme
Political commitments and adopted strategy or policy
Summary of findings3rd Area: Sustainable Energy Development
Example 3:2
Share of Renewables in total energy supply (2009)
0,0% 10,0% 20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0% 60,0% 70,0%
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Georgia
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Moldova
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
Uzbekistan
Summary of findingsArea 3 tabulation
Policy commitment
EE/RES Framework
development
EE/RES Action Plans and measures
Creation of Energy
agencies
Environment assessments/stan
dards
Kyoto Protocol mechanisms Gas flaring reduction
Armenia NOT APPLICABLE
Azerbaijan
Belarus NOT APPLICABLE
Georgia NOT APPLICABLE
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan NOT APPLICABLE
Moldova NOT APPLICABLE
Tajikistan NOT APPLICABLE
Turkmenistan
Ukraine NOT APPLICABLE
Uzbekistan
3rd Area of Cooperation: Sustainable development
Developing Developing Developing Basic
Basic DevelopingBasic Developing
Developing Developing Basic Basic Basic
Developing Basic BasicBasic
BasicBasic Basic
Developing Developing Basic Basic
Developing Developing Developing Developing
Developing Basic BasicBasic Developing
BasicBasic BasicBasicBasic Basic
Developing Developing Developing Developing
BasicBasicBasic
Basic
Basic
Basic
Basic
Basic
Basic
Developing
Basic
Basic
Basic Developing
Basic Developing
Developing
Basic
Basic
Basic
Developing
Developing
Advanced
Advanced
Advanced
Advanced Advanced
Summary of findings
• Six countries found “developing” in all indicators: Armenia, Georgia, Moldova, Tajikistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan
• Almost all Partner Countries are interested in developing their investment climate
• Variety of measures taken to attract investors and there are developing planning for new infrastructures
• Current frameworks are still underdeveloped‐40% of countries• Challenges remain stability, transparency and adequacy of
investment frameworks, as well as improvements of taxation and banking
4th Area: Investment Attraction
Summary of findingsArea 4 tabulation
Overall Summary
• Status Report is a sound ‘baseline’ on which to assess future progress
• No clear patterns emerge – some PCs lead in some co‐operation areas and lag behind in others
• Across all indicators in all 4 co‐operation areas the PCs are mostly balanced between ‘basic’ and ‘developing’
• Status Report can help identify those co‐operation areas requiring additional support
• IEA to be involved in next Status Report 2012
Overall Results: All PCs and all Indicators
• Overall the reportpresents a mixedpicture. The PCs areevenly spread between‘basic’ and‘developing’
• The PCs are assessedas ‘advanced’ across10% of the indicators
• No PC was found to beat a ‘mature’ level ofdevelopment on any ofthe 244 indicatorsassessed.
42%
48%
10%
Summary of all 4 Co‐operation Areas
BASIC DEVELOPING ADVANCED
Energy Market Convergence
52%30%
18%
1st Co‐operation Area ‐ Energy Market Convergence
BASIC DEVELOPING ADVANCED
• Market Convergence amixed picture. It hasthe most number of PCsas ‘advanced’
• Areas of weakness areindependent energyregulators andintegrated regionalmarkets
• Strongest areas areelectricity sectorunbundling, technicalrules and TPA
Energy Security
20%
73%
7%
2nd Co‐operation Area ‐ Energy Security
BASIC DEVELOPING ADVANCED
• Energy security – goodoverall status. Vastmajority of PCsassessed as‘developing’
• 3 Partner Countriesseen as ‘advanced’ inthe field of ‘SystemMaintenance.
• Weakest fields,‘Rehabilitation/upgrading’ and New EnergyInfrastructure
• Strongest – Metering &billing
Sustainable Development
56%37%
7%
3rd Co‐operation Area ‐ Sustainable Development
BASIC DEVELOPING ADVANCED
• SustainableDevelopment – modestoverall performance.Small majority of PCsassessed as ‘basic’
• SE has 2nd highestnumber of ‘advanced’assessments, mostlyrelated to ratification ofKP + UZ for reduction ingas flaring.
• GE ‘basic’ in mostindicators, UA‘developed’ in mostindicators.
Investment Attraction
21%
79%
4th Co‐operation Area ‐ Investment Attraction
BASIC DEVELOPING
• Investment Attraction – AllPCs assessed as either‘basic’ or ‘developing’ no‘advanced’ PCs.
• But vast majority areassessed as ‘developing’
• Strongest performing area isin ‘Investment Climate’ (allbut 1 PC are ‘developing’)
• Weakest is ‘InvestmentFramework’ where 4 out of11 PCs are assessed as‘basic’.
Thank you for attention!Andrii Mitsai and Kevin McCann
[email protected]@inogate.org
INOGATE Technical Secretariat and Integrated Programme in support of the Baku Initiative and the Eastern Partnership energy objectives
