BRIEF STATUS OF SHP PROJECTS IN ROMANIA

1
BRIEF STATUS OF SHP PROJECTS IN ROMANIA Vergila
Dadu Cristian Tantareanu
ENERO- Center for Promotion of Clean and
Efficient Energy in Romania
2
The hydro resources

• 36 TWh/y technical feasible potential

• 14.4 TWh/y 2001 production
• 6.5 GW installed power
• 4.2 GW operational power

• 4,000 rivers totalling over 60,000 km
• 1,245 km on Danube

3
SHP Potential
4
SHP rated less than 10 MW - 300 MW installed -
1/3 operational - almost all need refurbishment
and modernisation - 125 MW construction
not-finished Present owners - ELECTRICA -
HIDROELECTRICA - local authorities - industrial
self-producers About other 3,000 sites are SHP
favourable.
5
A SWOT analyse proposal

• Strenghts
• good potential
• good indigenous engineering know-how
• new and advanced energy laws account for energy
  market liberalisation
• the absorption of the EU acquis , including the
  renewables is a must
• the Power and Heat Regulatory Authority-ANRE
  produced a clear regulatory framework for IPPs to
  operate according the regulated Third Part Access
  (rTPA) principles
• the industry has a proven capability to transfer
  and implement modern technologies for SHP

6

• Weaknesses
• high capital costs jeopardise the ability of SHP
  to compete in a free energy market.
• limited availability of investment capital.
• banks not interested in long term businesses
• poor overall economic performance inducing
  shortage of investment capital.
• lack of information and thrust in mechanisms as
  ESCO and TPF
• few specific Romanian norms and standards
  relating to SHP
• lack of operational experience with IPPs

7

• Oportunities
• the Kyoto mechanisms JI
• quite many international funds oriented to
  renewables
• present SHP owners (ELECTRICA, HIDROELECTRICA)
  interested to sell
• many SHP works unfinished, the main
  infrastructure already in place
• better business for self producers their
  reference, 7-8 cEuro/kWh on the ELECTRICA bill
• need and interest for civil works related to SHP
  potable water, course control, tourism etc

8

• Threats
• nuclear is the priority
• still low energy price
• large hydro may cover any obligations on clean
  energy
• still there are unused medium and large size HP
  sites to deal
• no specific encouraging legislation and financial
  mechanisms
• sufficient electricity production
• renewables, therefore SHP, are dealt with by
  various decision-making bodies with no clear
  delimitation between responsibilities (see ANRE,
  ARCE)
• unregulated liberalisation of the market
• slow pace of translating new energy laws and
  national strategies into a well-functioning
  energy market
• low skill of local administrations to manage SHP

9
Conclusions ? - Important potential, mainly for
refurbishment and for the already started works
fulfillment - The technology may be CoE
competitive, mainly where self-producers - Good
project identification, financing and development
need professional partner process - Monitoring
and info dissemination on successful projects are
necessary.
10
CONCLUSIONS ON THE SHP OPET WORKSHOP

• small HP does not imply less careful
  professional approach. Maybe contrary
• SHP development is a specialized engineering
  field
• in CEE there are big resources for SHP
• profitable projects identification asks careful
  consideration
• funding- the main problem
• regulatory and financial framework should be
  developed in CEE
• the East-West partnership is a win-win situation
• partners advantages
• West profit, contribute to the European targets
  (see Green Paper), as some CEE will access
• East energy, technology jobs
• partners contributions
• West money, market experience, specific
  mechanisms
• East resources, good local expertise