OverviewSouth East Europe is a diverse region with respect to energy policy and legislation, comprising a mix of EU memberstates, candidate and potential candidate countries. Despite this diversity, shared challenges and opportunities exist.The electricity network of the South East Europe region is highly connected, energy policies more harmonised andelectricity markets better integrated – as a result of the EU accession process, the Energy Community Treaty and,more recently, the Energy Union initiative supporting a regional perspective on policy development. This reportemphasises the regional dimension; it is complemented by national reports available on the South East EuropeEnergy Roadmap (SEERMAP) website (http://seermap.rekk.hu) [1].The SEERMAP project uses a model-based assessment of different long term electricity investment strategies forAlbania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Greece, Kosovo*, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,Montenegro, Romania and Serbia. The SEERMAP region will need to replace more than 30% of its current fossilfuel generation capacity by the end of 2030, and more than 95% by 2050. This provides both a challenge to ensure apolicy framework which will incentivise new investment, and an opportunity to shape the electricity sector over thelong term in-line with a broader energy transition strategy unconstrained by the current generation portfolio.The aimof the analysis is to show the challenges and opportunities ahead and the trade-offs between different policy goals.The project can also contribute to a better understanding of the benefits that regional cooperation can provide for allinvolved countries. Although ultimately energy policy decisions will need to be taken by national policy makers,these decisions must recognise the interdependence of investment and regulatory decisions of neighbouringcountries. Rather than outline specific policy advise in such a complex and important topic, our aim is to support aninformed dialogue at the national and regional level so that policymakers can work together to find optimal solutions.MethodsFive models incorporating the electricity and gas markets, the transmission network and macro-economic systemwere used to assess the impact of three core scenarios. The European Electricity Market Model (EEMM) and theGreen-X model together assess the impact of different scenario assumptions on power generation investment anddispatch decisions. The EEMM is a partial equilibrium microeconomic model. It assumes that the electricity marketis fully liberalised and perfectly competitive. In the model, electricity generation as well as cross border capacitiesare allocated on a market basis without gaming or withholding capacity: the cheapest available generation will beused, and if imports are cheaper than producing electricity domestically demand will be satisfied with imports. TheGreen-X model complements the EEMM with a more detailed view of renewable electricity potential, policies andcapacities. The model includes a detailed and harmonised methodology for calculating long-term renewable energypotential for each technology using GIS-based information, technology characteristics, as well as land use and powergrid constraints. The three core scenarios can be described as follows:1. The ‘no target’ scenario reflects the implementation of existing energy policy (including implementation ofrenewable energy targets for 2020 and construction of all power plants included in official planningdocuments) combined with a CO_2 price (which is only envisaged from 2030 onwards for non EU memberstates). The scenario does not include an explicit 2050 CO_2 target or a renewables target for the electricitysectors of the EU member states or countries in the Western Balkans;2. The ‘decarbonisation’ scenario reflects a long-term strategy to significantly reduce CO_2 emissions, in linewith EU emission reduction goals for the electricity sector as a whole by 2050, driven by the CO_2 price andstrong, consistent RES support;3. The ‘delayed’ scenario involves an initial implementation of current national investment plans (business-asusualpolicies) followed by a change in policy direction from 2035 onwards, resulting in the realisation ofthe same emission reduction target in 2050 as the ‘decarbonisation’ scenario. This is driven by the CO_2price and increased RES support from 2035 onwards.The same emission reduction target of 94% was set for the SEERMAP region in the ‘delayed’ and ‘decarbonisation’scenarios. This implies that the emission reductions will be higher in some countries and lower in others, dependingon where emissions can be reduced most cost-efficiently. Due to the divergent generation capacities, the scenariosresult in different generation mixes and corresponding levels of CO_2 emissions, but also in different investmentneeds, wholesale price levels, patterns of trade, and macroeconomic impacts.ResultsThe main investment challenge in the SEERMAP region is replacing currently installed lignite and oil basedcapacities, of which more than 30% is expected to be decommissioned by the end of 2030 and more than 95% by2050. The model results show that the least cost capacity options under the assumed costs and prices are renewables(in particular wind, hydro and solar) in emission reduction target scenarios and a mix of natural gas and renewablesin the ‘no target’ scenario.The capacity mix changes significantly in all three core scenarios, with a shift away from fossil based towardsrenewable capacity. The changes in the capacity mix are driven primarily by increasing carbon prices and decreasingrenewable technology costs. Oil capacity disappears after 2035 in all scenarios, while coal and lignite based capacitydrops from an initial 24.2 GW in 2016 to 6.6 GW by 2050 in the ‘no target’ and ‘delayed’ scenarios, and to 1.2 GWin the ‘decarbonisation’ scenario. By 2050, most of the coal capacity can be found in Bosnia and Herzegovina,Kosovo* and Serbia in both the ‘no target’ and ‘delayed’ scenarios according to model results, with 2000, 1100 and1400 MW capacity respectively. In the ‘decarbonisation’ scenario the entire coal capacity in the SEERMAP regionis based in 3 countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria and Greece.Renewable capacity becomes increasingly important in all three scenarios. Investment in new wind capacities issignificant, tripling in the ‘no target’ scenario from 6 GW in 2016 to around 20 GW in 2050. In the two scenarioswith a decarbonisation target for 2050 the growth is even more significant, with wind capacity reaching 41 GW and36 GW in the 2050 ‘delayed’ and ‘decarbonisation’ scenarios respectively. Relative wind capacity increase isespecially high in the candidate and potential candidate countries (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo*,former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia), where most countries has no or limitedexperience in operating wind farms.ConclusionsWhether or not countries in the region pursue an active policy to support renewable electricity generation, asignificant replacement of fossil fuel based generation capacity will take place; coal and lignite based generationphase out gradually under all scenarios due to the increasing carbon price and oil disappears from the electricity mixby 2030. Decarbonisation will require continued RES support during the entire period. However, the need forsupport decreases as the electricity wholesale price increases and thereby incentivises significant RES investmenteven without support. The sensitivity analysis reveals that regional RES targets are significantly more cost-effectivethan national targets, to the point that the required RES support in a national target scenario is twice the level of thesupport needed in a regional support scenario. A regional system will also encourage harmonisation of other supportelements such as permitting, grid connection rules, financing, taxation, etc. Last but not least, as revenues from theauctioning of EU ETS allowances are sufficient to cover RES support for most of the modelled period, a scheme tofinance RES support from these revenues can be devised in order to relieve the burden on consumers.
展开▼
