Transcript PowerPoint-presentatie

Capacity Plan for 2003-2009: Market Consultation
1
FINAL REPORT
Section 1
General Picture
and
Background Information
July 2003
Capacity Plan for 2003-2009: Market Consultation
2
Cause
 In the wake of the finalisation of the Capacity Plan for 2003-2009, TenneT increasingly found itself experiencing
a need to sound out consult the various market players on the set-up and substance of the survey of the
electricity market.
 Fact-finding visits were paid to this end to a comprehensive range of businesses including generating companies,
sector associations, supplier businesses, consultants and traders.
 A total of 21 parties ended up being contacted all of which responded positively, with the subsequent interviews
taking place in a highly constructive atmosphere.
Capacity Plan for 2003-2009: Market Consultation
3
General picture
 Notwithstanding the fact that each of the parties has discussed the various themes from its own perspective, the
consultation round has nevertheless brought to light as a fairly general picture that the electricity market is
currently still grappling with a large number of uncertainties that are seriously undermining the foundations of
the market as such.
 These uncertainties are to do with market structuring and with the Dutch and EU government policy inclusive of
regulation.
 According to the interviewees, governments in particular will have to make choices without delay to arrive at a
stable level playing field to underpin a healthy investment climate.
Capacity Plan for 2003-2009: Market Consultation
4
Main uncertainties:







Impact of future carbon dioxide, sulphur and nitrogen oxide emission trading systems.
Renewable development.
Expansion of interconnector capacity domestically and at European level.
Phase-out of nuclear facilities.
Outcome of process of liberalisation and privatisation of gas and electricity markets.
Tariff harmonisation.
Emergence yes or no of market power on development of oligopoly at European level.
More in-depth attention is devoted to each of the above uncertainties in the next pages.
Capacity Plan for 2003-2009: Market Consultation
5
 Impact of future carbon dioxide, sulphur and nitrogen oxide emission trading systems on the electricity
market
•
•
•
•
Political uncertainties are prompting businesses when preparing future scenarios to include emission trade as a
major risk, which in turn is causing generators to be put off newly developing capacity. At present, in fact,
almost no interest can be detected in new coal-fired capacity development.
Capital expenditure schemes aimed at extending the life of existing plants are also being deferred as emission
trade could necessitate substantial environmental investments having to be made and/or costs for old units having
to be incurred.
A further concern is that a multitude of national emission right trading systems could be formed rather than a
single EU system. If this happened, no level playing field could be achieved.
It is unclear at market level whether the government would be willing for the sake of the environment to
introduce additional CHP incentives.
Capacity Plan for 2003-2009: Market Consultation
6
CO2-emission trade in the Netherlands
 The Dutch government in 2002 decided to go with the European Commission’s “cap and trade system”.
 This system is to be rolled out from 2005 onwards.
 The cap and trade system provides the joint emission trade participants with a fixed quantity of emission rights, thus
creating an absolute cap (maximum).
 The rights issued are identical in numbers to the emission which would take place in a policy-less scenario on deduction of
the reduction target. Rights will be made available to the various parties without cost (“grandfathering”).
Capacity Plan for 2003-2009: Market Consultation
7
Potential effects of implementation of CO2 emission trade (1)
 McKinsey in a recent survey has demonstrated that the price for CO2 emission rights in a fully fledged market environment
could turn out at EUR 25/tonne. This would push up electricity prices and cause coal to be supplanted by gas.
 According to McKinsey, the “grandfathering mechanism” will enable many electricity generators to realise unexpected profits.
Source: These charts were originally published in "Climate change for Europe's utilities“, The McKinsey Quarterly, 2003 Number 1, and can be found on
the publication's Web site, www.mckinseyquarterly.com. Copyright (c) 2003 McKinsey & Company. All rights reserved. Reprinted by permission.
Capacity Plan for 2003-2009: Market Consultation
8
Potential effects of implementation of CO2 emission trade (2)
 McKinsey has furthermore pointed out that European policy makers will have to strike the appropriate balance in realising the
following goals:
Preservation of competitive electricity generation
CO2 emission reduction
Retail price maximisation
Source: "Climate change for Europe's utilities“,The McKinsey Quarterly
Capacity Plan for 2003-2009: Market Consultation
9
 Future facilitation of “renewable” approach (1)
•
•
•
Expectations for the coming years continue to point to major differences being maintained between the various
EU Member States in terms of “renewable” subsidies. Although EU tax relief and subsidy status will in due
course be secured for “renewable”, the time frame within which these changes are to be implemented is shrouded
in uncertainty.
The CO2 targets of the various Member States, will partly dictate the national subsidy options for “renewable”.
This development could hamper the emergence of a level playing field.
In the Netherlands the development of off-shore wind farms is being delayed due to the government not yet
having endorsed the North Sea concession scheme. The issue of permits is suspended until the concession
scheme has been finalised.
Capacity Plan for 2003-2009: Market Consultation
10
 Future facilitation of “renewable” approach (2)
•
•
The energetic lobbying activities by environmental/pressure groups are being seen as an uncertain factor in terms
of the expansion plans for off and on shore wind farms and biomass projects. Securing the appropriate permits
usually is the main obstacle where projects are concerned.
The government’s plans to start differentiating the subsidy for small-scale biomass installations on expiry of a
three-year term of the implementation of the MEP Scheme could put off the development of this option.
Capacity Plan for 2003-2009: Market Consultation
11
Main elements of government encouragement/subsidising of “green” power, CHP (combined heat and power) and
CNFE (climate-neutral fossil energy):
 Promotion of demand for “green” power:
Consumers that opt for “green” power are charged less Regulatory Energy Tax (“eco tax”) (Netherlands Environmental Taxes Act,
Section 36 sub i), with the eco tax on “green” power amounting to EUR 3,49/kWh compared with EUR 6,39kWh for “grey” power.
 Promotion of supply of “green” power, CHP and CNFE:
The generators of the above power grades receive compensation for the power they produce in the context of the MEP Scheme.
Awarding of the above grants by the government is effected on the basis of (“green”) certificates.
Capacity Plan for 2003-2009: Market Consultation
12
MEP Scheme
 The objective of the MEP Scheme consists in providing for powerful and cost-effective encouragement of the
environmental quality of electricity generation in the Netherlands. The MEP Scheme enables plants generating renewable
electricity or CHP or CNFE-generated electricity to be subsidised.
 The MEP grant is a fixed amount per kWh and ranges from EUR 0.00 to EUR 0.07 per kWh generated and released
to the grid or to a plant. The Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs resets the amount annually, through a Ministerial
Regulation. The level may vary depending on the various categories of generating companies and of generating plants.
 A MEP grant is awarded on a non-recurring basis in respect of plants that generate renewable energy, subject to a
maximum term of ten years. This does not apply to CHP plant, for which a grant application is required to be filed
annually.
Source EnerQ web site
Capacity Plan for 2003-2009: Market Consultation
13
MEP Scheme
Type of plant
On-shore wind power
Off-shore wind power
Solar power
Hydro/ wave-induced/ t idal power
Biomass-fuelled plant (excluding
wast e incinerat ion,
wast e dump gas or sludge
ferment at ion-biogas fuelled plant )
Wast e incinerat ion plant
CHP
CHP
Conditions
Amount
(as EUR/ kW h)
0.049
0.068
0.068
0.068
Having a nominal
elect rical capacit y of no
more t han 50MW
Conversion of pure biomass
0.068
Conversion of non-pure
biomass
0.029
Having a nominal
Conversion of pure biomass
elect rical capacit y of
0.048
more t han 50MW
Conversion of non-pure
biomass
0.029
Having a efficiency of at least 26%
0.029
Provided generat or feeds int o grid
0.0057
Provided generat or feeds int o plant : as soon as t he
elect ricit y sourced by t he generat or plus t hat fed int o
t he grid exceed 5,000,000kWh over t he period from
1 July t o 31 December 2003
0.0057
Source: Netherlands Government Gazette, 27 June 2003, no. 121.
Capacity Plan for 2003-2009: Market Consultation
14
 Expansion of interconnector capacity domestically and at European level
•
•
Uncertainties surrounding the taking into operation of the phase shifters are clearly affecting price levels.
TenneT has not duly appreciated the major change which the 1,000MW in additional import capacity will
make on the interaction between the Dutch market and the surrounding constituent markets.
The failure to unbundle the grid and the generating companies in certain countries is calling the development
of a single pan-European electricity market into question (see “Outcome of process of liberalisation and
privatisation of electricity markets” below).
Capacity Plan for 2003-2009: Market Consultation
15
UCTE capacity balance: forecast for the third Wednesday in the month of January 2003
Legend
NGC
National Generating Power C apacity (GW)
GC
Guaranteed capacity (GW)
RL
Referenc e Load (GW)
RCRL
Remai ning capacity at referenc e load (GW)
RCRL / NGPC
(%)
RCRL/RL
(%)
 On the basis of ETSO Winter 2001- 2002 NTC between regions (MW)
(DC lines in blue)
    lines temporall y out of s er vice
NORDEL
IPS/UPS
Island operation
0
400
600
300
ENGLAND & WALES
Burshtyn Island
???
2,210
2,000
CENTREL (4)
2,000
UCTE except (1) & (2) & (3) & (4)
2,400
302.0 GW
227.1 GW
197.9 GW
29.2 GW
9.7 %
14.8 %
4,600
ROMANIA & BULGARIA
0
0
6,000
NGC
GC
RL
RCRL
RCRL/NGC
RCRL/RL
NRV
SPAIN + PORTUGAL (1)
NGC
GC
RL
RCRL
RCRL/NGC
RCRL/RL
64.0 GW
48.1 GW
40.4 GW
7.7 GW
11.9 %
18.9 %
350
300
NORTH AFRICA
NGC
GC
RL
RCRL
RCRL/NGC
RCRL/RL
ITALY (3)
79.5 GW
51.5 GW
51.2 GW
0.3 GW
0.4 %
0.8 %
20.7 GW
15.4 GW
15.3 GW
0.1 GW
0.5 %
0.7 %
2,050
1,400
XXX GW
XXX GW
RL
XXX GW
RCRL
XXX GW
RCRL/NGC
XXX %
RCRL/RL
XXX %
Island operation
330
500
TURKEY
100
1,600
JIEL + GREECE (2)
NGC
GC
150
0
0
1,200
3.8 GW
2.1 GW
1.7 GW
0.5 GW
13.2 %
29.4 %
0
NGC
GC
RL
RCRL
RCRL/NGC
RCRL/RL
65.4 GW
49.5 GW
38.9 GW
10.6 GW
16.3 %
27.5 %
NGC
GC
RL
RCRL
RCRL/NGC
RCRL/RL
0
NGC
GC
RL
RCRL
RCRL/NGC
RCRL/RL
???
1,720
Capacity Plan for 2003-2009: Market Consultation
16
 Phase-out of nuclear facilities
•
•
•
There is wide-spread doubt regarding the planned phase-out of nuclear facilities in Germany and even more so in
Belgium. “Acid test” scheduled for German units will be the closure of the Biblis nuclear plant in 2006.
This uncertainty could hamper the development of newly built generating capacity in Germany in particular.
The factors giving rise to these doubts include:
 Kyoto agreements – The closing down of nuclear plants will place the emission targets out of reach;
 The decision to keep the Borssele plant in operation until 2013;
 The debate in Sweden and Finland on extending operation of and newly developing nuclear plant,
respectively.
Capacity Plan for 2003-2009: Market Consultation
17
Phase-out of nuclear plant: The German situation (1)
 Total operational capacity in Germany amounts to some 22GW.
 About one-third of German electricity consumption is accounted for by power generated in nuclear plants
(approx. 160TWh).
 A covenant was concluded in 2001 between the German government and generating companies providing for the
closure of all nuclear facilities. It was determined in this context what residual power generation would be permitted per
individual nuclear plant beyond January 2000. This implies that the only remaining nuclear plant will be closed down
around 2025 (provided the current operating times are perpetuated).
Capacity Plan for 2003-2009: Market Consultation
18
Phase-out of nuclear plant: The German situation (2)
 The nuclear plant phase-out schedule is far from predictable due to the trade in generating quota being permitted under
specific circumstances.
Totaal
*1) Bij aanname m.b.t capaciteitsfactor van ca 85%
*1) Year decommissioned on assumption of a capacity factor of approx. 85%
21880
Operating capacity of German nuclear plants
25
20
15
10
5
Jaar
Source: Covenant dated 14 June 2000 between the Federal Government of Germany and the
power generating companies.
2024
2022
2020
2018
2016
2014
0
2012
2003
2005
2007
2008
2008
2009
2012
2013
2013
2015
2016
2016
2017
2019
2020
2021
2021
2023
2024
2010
357
663
1204
806
1300
840
907
900
1247
1345
1316
1344
1344
1430
1362
1475
1361
1365
1314
Opgesteld vermogen Duitse kerncentrales
MW)
2008
8.7
23.2
62.0
47.7
81.5
57.4
78.4
87.1
118.0
150.0
158.2
160.9
168.4
200.9
198.6
231.2
217.9
236.0
230.1
Obrigheim (1968)
Stade (1972)
Biblis A (1974)
Brunsbuttel (1976)
Biblis B (1976)
Neckarwestheim I (1976)
Isar 1 (1977)
Philippsburg 1(1979)
Unterweser (1978)
Grafenrheinfeld (1981)
Krummel (1983)
Gundremmingen B (1984)
Gundremmingen C (1984)
Grohnde (1984)
Philippsburg 2 (1984)
Isar 2 (1988)
Brokdorf (1986)
Neckarwestheim 2 (1988)
Emsland (1988)
Jaar uit
bedrijf *1)
2006
Capaciteit
2004
Productiequotum
vanaf 2000
(TWh)
2002
Plant (year commissioned)
Vermogen (GW)
Centrale (jaar in bedrijf)
Capacity Plan for 2003-2009: Market Consultation
19
 Outcome of process of liberalisation and privatisation of gas and electricity markets (1)
•
•
Uncertainties surrounding the security of supply are making a variety of authorities turn away from the
comprehensive liberalisation of the electricity market. Some national authorities are becoming concerned with the
dependence from other countries where it concerns the supply of energy (carriers). In the Netherlands, for
example, both the Social Democrats and the Christian Democrats in the run-up to the 2003 general elections
argued that the Netherlands should be significantly self-supporting in this respect. The focus on national selfsufficiency within the EU is developing into a theme.
Confusion surrounding the breaking up of old generation monopolies is frustrating the opening up of the market
in some countries including France and Belgium.
Capacity Plan for 2003-2009: Market Consultation
20
 Outcome of process of liberalisation and privatisation of gas and electricity markets (2)
•
•
Protectionist measures in some EU Member States are delaying the opening up of the market. In Germany, the
government has decided to continue power production from lignite-fired plants. The EU has launched an
investigation in the context of which all these national schemes are being probed.
Trends in the gas market, the tariff structure applied by Gasunie, etc. are having a negative impact on CHP and
the investment climate. Uncertainty surrounding the position adopted by authorities, fuel prices and the fuel mix
in the years beyond 2010 represents a further theme.
Capacity Plan for 2003-2009: Market Consultation
21
Liberalisation of electricity market

Ratification, in early June 2003, of the EU Energy Directive:
1.
monitoring will continue at national level, albeit that the Member states will be under the obligation to
report potentially anti-competitive conduct to the European Commission;
2.
monitoring of misappropriation of nuclear plant decommissioning funds;
3.
stipulations regarding power labelling, opening up of distribution grids, legal unbundling and
preservation of reserve capacity;
4.
agreements on deadlines for opening up of markets: 1 July 2004 for the wholesale sector and 1 July
2007 for the retail sector.
Capacity Plan for 2003-2009: Market Consultation
22
Liberalisation of gas market (1)
 EU agreement on draft CHP Directive:
1.
2.
3.
4.
At least 18% of aggregate electricity generating plants in the individual EU Member States by 2010;
settlement of definitions for CHP and certification;
supply-back guarantee;
settlement of transparent and consistent permit and grant scheme.
 EU: Second European Gas Directive – no long-term contracts except for planned Anglo-Dutch link, provision for “open
season” and “use it or lose it” principles, no tariff regulation.
 Kyoto debate increasingly in tandem with sentiment regarding nuclear energy vs. gas consumption.
Capacity Plan for 2003-2009: Market Consultation
23
Liberalisation of gas market (2)
 EU seeks to achieve integrated electricity and gas market governed by a single set of rules regarding the environment,
safety, liberalisation and technological harmonisation (grids, infrastructure).
 EU Member States: Collaboration with EU neighbours increasingly crucial due to increasing dependence on energy
(carriers), but tough negotiations with Norway and Algeria with a view to supply contracts involving third parties in the
EU in infringement of EU competition regulations.
 The increase in the demand for gas for power generation is set to exceed that for other fuels in relative terms.
 The Dutch small-scale field policy is affecting the gas price.
 The access policy that has been developed for Gasunie’s gas network has met with EU approval.
Capacity Plan for 2003-2009: Market Consultation
24
Political strategy accompanying security of supply and self-sufficiency (1)
 The Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, from the perspective of security of supply, is working on the implementation of
measures aimed at optimising grid reliability such as quality regulation, performance standardisation, yardstick competition
and certification. Furthermore the Ministry is looking into how to safeguard the generating capacity in the long term. The
Minister has identified the following key conditions in this context:
1. intensified monitoring of demand and supply;
2. enhanced investment climate for peak capacity;
3. appreciation by the market players of their own responsibilities.
 Increasing resistance in the political sphere in the Netherlands against European liberalisation due to:
1. excessive dependence on “foreign countries”;
2. arduous liberalisation abroad due to nationalistic mindset;
3. the concern of the imports foreseen not being guaranteed.
Capacity Plan for 2003-2009: Market Consultation
25
Political strategy accompanying security of supply and self-sufficiency (2)
 Political parties are advocating government guarantees regarding adequate national generating capacity e.g. by putting in
place a market for reserve capacity or making it mandatory to maintain reserve capacity. The Dutch Ministry of
Economic Affairs has for the time being confined itself to commissioning additional investigations aimed at providing an
insight into the reliability of supply and provision in terms of “use and necessity” and “cost-benefit”.
 The General Energy Council of the Netherlands (AER) is making serious allowance for the risk that the original
intentions underpinning the market mechanism will only be partially achieved, with self-sufficiency representing a theme
in this context.
Capacity Plan for 2003-2009: Market Consultation
26
Confusion regarding the breaking up of generation monopolies is frustrating the opening up of the market (1)
 Belgian-based Electrabel and the Belgian municipalities apply price-fixing agreements to electricity sales.
 Considerable opposition against the planned German regulator which intends inter alia to fix the conditions governing
connection and use.
 Many European grid companies continue to date to be associated with the original energy companies.
 The Flemish government has determined that suppliers should source part of their electricity demand from Flemish
generating companies of renewable power, on penalty of being fined.
 The French have been frustrating the EU liberalisation target: the time frame having been set in the eventual agreement
being generous.
Capacity Plan for 2003-2009: Market Consultation
27
Confusion regarding the breaking up of generation monopolies is frustrating the opening up of the market (2)




The EU is suing France for its failure to proceed with the liberalisation of the gas market.
Both Germany and France are misappropriating nuclear plant decommissioning funds.
The Spanish authorities insist with their “golden share” in Endesa on developing a strong national player first.
The United Kingdom protests against the lack of discipline of its continental counterparts, with British companies falling
prey to takeovers.
Source: Finergy Project Report, no.11
Capacity Plan for 2003-2009: Market Consultation
28
Opening up of market being delayed due to protectionism
 Germany is allowing considerable subsidies for lignite/coal-fired electricity generation, as is France, which moreover
subsidises nuclear electricity generation.
 Lawsuits concerning the German “lignite clause”, viz. market players whose operations thwart power generation using
lignite may be denied grid access.
 The privatisation of EDF is proving to be quite costly to the French government due to pension rights and commercial
refinancing charges. The government is already facing steep costs, with state guarantees for nuclear plant being a must
because of uninsurable risks.
 The EU has requested from Germany and France that they should cut back government support (tax relief/credit bonds).
 The German government is contemplating the amendment of the Electricity Act so as to be able to refuse power imports
from insufficiently liberalised markets (countries), France in particular.
 The EU is tackling Spain and Italy for their legislation aimed against EDF acquisitions.
 Power imports are not permitted in Poland whereas this country’s inadequate distribution facilities make its power exports
expensive.
Capacity Plan for 2003-2009: Market Consultation
29
 Tariff harmonisation
•
Differences between tariff systems will disrupt the level playing field. The Dutch generators’ tariff (LUP) puts
Dutch generators at an arrears of over one euro per MWh as compared to their foreign counterparts. This
accounts for approximately 20% of the current forward price discrepancy.
Capacity Plan for 2003-2009: Market Consultation
30
European tariff systems
Source: ETSO
Capacity Plan for 2003-2009: Market Consultation
31
Electricity transmission costs (inclusive of system services) in Europe
Source: ETSO
Capacity Plan for 2003-2009: Market Consultation
32
 Emergence yes or no of market power on development of oligopoly at European level
•
•
•
•
Current prices are below the long-term marginal costs, and may have resulted from a surplus situation or from
the efforts made by established market players to ward off new market entrants.
As the generation of electricity represents a capital-intensive industry an oligopoly of vertically integrated
companies at EU level would appear to be the most probable future market situation. A balance will have to be
struck between competitor numbers and profit margins.
New market entrants will probably have to confine themselves to niche markets.
The ongoing process of consolidation among market players and the fact that some national monopolies are
being maintained are combining to dampen enthusiasm where the development of new generating capacity is
concerned.
Capacity Plan for 2003-2009: Market Consultation
33
Ideal model
Reality
Monopoly
 Economies of scale.
 Scope for achieving social and environmental
ambitions as well.
 Unambiguous public responsibility
 Due to the technical dominance at E industry
Competitive market
 The disintegration of the chain is causing
 Companies are securing their chain, thus
wholesale and retail markets to form and will be
forcing down prices.
 Overinvestment has become a thing of the past.
 Greater financial drive, which will spark
competition among raw material and supplier
companies as well.
management level, marketing/financial
performance difficult to measure and control.
 No consistent government interference
causing vertical oligopoly to form.
 Over and underinvestment cycles will emerge.
 Higher costs for administration (software) and
customer contacts (marketing communication) are
being charged on to the customer.
 Social/environmental ambitions are scarcely
being lived up to/achieved