REPROMO - Renewable Energy Promotion Campaign for the Realisation of Trans-national RES Projects, especially in CEEC

Ms. Gabriella Pál’s presentation: Obstacles and potential for grid connected RES-E implementation in Hungary

Ms. Gabriella Pál called the attention in her speech to the current support scheme and further potential for price support and major issues relating ratification of 2001/77/EC Directive.

Concerning the current support system Ms. Pál attracted the attention for the Ministerial Decree No. 47/2002: Secondary legislation by the Minister of Economy on technical and financial requirements. You may download more information at the following site:

Estimated supply effects in the Hungarian RES-E market

HUF/kWh	Technology	GWh	GWh
		accumulated
12,00	Hydro	40	40
12,40 – 14.00	Waste incineratn.	90	130
14,00– 16,00	Sewage gas	110	240
16,00 – 17,00	Waste gasificatn.	140	380
17,00 – 24,00	Wind power	477	857

The RES-Energy supply is 0.3% of the total electricity consumption, with 0.65 cost value of total electricity account. The supply of total electricity consumption will be estimated to 2.7%, the total electricity account to 4.28% in the future.

Further eligibility issues of RES-E
In Hungarian legislation all RES-E is eligible to feed-in obligation but not all RES-E definition is eligible to price support.

Most new members have lower share of RES-E than EU-15. If large hydro is to become non-eligible: RES-E is next to zero.
The EU-15 used to have 13.9% of RES-E in 1997 and decided a 59% of average increase over 13 years. The same exercise for Hungary would result an increase from an optimistic 1% in 2004 to 1.59% by 2017, or, alternatively, 1.3% by 2010.

In new member states support schemes the following existing RES-E capacities are to be expected:

External costs of non-renewable electricity not fully shifted to producers, because of several reasons. New LCP Directive is not implemented yet, further cost increase may be expected to come for non-RES-Energies, and on social welfare basis RES-Energie provides avoidance of external costs: it justifies higher fix prices.
"Unbundling";of RES-E and CHP support seems to be necessary.

Concerning the guarantee of origin the system of GoO is not implemented yet, the data requirements are enacted similarly, the Calorific Value of biomass is self-reported at time of purchase along with changes is stock.

The verification and storage related loss of CV (storage time and condition) issues are not addressed yet and the calorific value is also not sufficient for accurate calculations.

Concerning Hybrid plants (biomass+fossil fuel) Ms. Pál attracted the attention, that „A GoO shall specify the energy source from which the electricity was produced, specifying the dates and places of production (Article 5.)”

In her conclusions Ms. Pál called the attention that definitions for hydro and waste need to be further clarified. Furthermore the preserve of higher priority of RES-E over CHP-E along the legislative changes should be preferred. The price support should focus on viable RES-E.