Page 1


Oil & Gas • Electricity • Renewables • Environment


energyworld No 17 | March-April 2017



March-April 2017 Price: 3 Euros

CANETE NEGOTIATES KEY PROJECTS WITH GREEK GOVERNMENT Second chance for SerbiaBulgaria gas interconnection Energy liberalization in Romania Geography and Transport of Energy Resources

Code: 210062

Founder & Managing Director Apostolos Komnos Email: Publishing Assistant Dragos Zaharia

Editor in Chief Yiannis Pispirigos Editors & Contributors Emilia Damian Ada Gavrilescu Nikolay Jekov Ilin Stanev Atanas Georgiev Kostadin Sirlestov Stevan Veljovic Vladimir Spasic Lorenc Gordani Penelope Mitroulia Ian Becker Solon Kassinis Dr Yannis Kelemenis Nikos Drakopoulos Art Director Anastasia Komnou Email: Atelier Sophia Sofikiti

Commercial Director Apostolos Komnos Email: Administration Manager Chrysa Drakopoulou Email: Subscriptions Romania: +40 21 3110455 Greece: +30 210 7240510


energyworld Magazine

BULGARIA Sofia ALEANA Commercial & Media Services Ltd Email:

is published by All Media Designers S.R.L. Sos. Nicolae Titulescu nr.3, Bloc A1, ap.62, Sector 1, CP 011131, Bucuresti

GREECE Athens TRIM S.A. Email: Energyworld magazine. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be transmitted or reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

The english edition for SE Europe & Eastern Mediterranean Issue No 17 March - April 2017 ISSUE PRICE 3 Euros




BSOG could start production in 2019 in a new gas discovery

Second chance for Serbia-Bulgaria gas interconnection


We must find FAIR way of distributing the cost burden

New regulation: very costly for some EU Members

Smart meters in Bulgaria: Still solving low tech problems







01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13



the abuse of dominant position of PPC in the lignite supply market

Western Balkans Governance of Energy Efficiency



Geography and Transport of Energy Resources




Romania, still reliant on coal

Romanians don’t use solar energy for heating

Energy liberalization in Romania


14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26


01 4

Smart meters & smart grid get on track

Smart metering: the crux of a “revolution”, “the next generation”, or “the smarter future”, according to many European energy companies, such as France’s EDF and Spain’s Telefonica. The new electricity meters seem set to transform the way the world monitors its energy usage. You can see the European appeal; the meters have several proposed benefits. Smart meters display near real-time data on energy use, which allows households and businesses to better manage their energy use. Plus, it brings an end to estimated billing. Consumers can budget better and energy suppliers deal with fewer billing complaints. It’s a win-win situation. Providers all over the world recognise the demand for efficient energy use, thus smart meter programmes are being developed across the world. For example, the British government plans to install a smart meter in every home (over 26 million) by 2020. Why the huge rollout? The European Union asked its member states to consider smart meters as part of their efforts

to reduce climate change. The British government conducted a study and adopted the aforementioned plan. The EU has also encouraged other member states to rollout smart meters. A report from the European Commission states that along with the UK, Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxemburg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden “will proceed with large-scale roll-out of smart meters by 2020 or earlier”, or have already done so. An EU sanctioned study found that the EU’s efforts could cut emissions by up to nine percent. Largely, EU governments and European energy providers are enthusiastic about the rollouts. For example, Germany will see the installation of 44 million smart meters by 2026 and a total investment of €22.73 billion in smart grids. Evidently, smart meters are part of many government’s plans to cut carbon emissions and save energy. The demand for efficient meters knows no geographical bounds, and energy companies around the world are responding to it.

News in brief

02 6

Hellenic Petroleum EC approves German electric vehicle posts strong Q4 results charging plan Greece’s biggest oil refiner Hellenic Petroleum reported a 17 percent rise in fourth-quarter core profit on Thursday, helped by strong refining margins and exports. Core profit, or underlying earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) – stripping out oil inventory holdings – came in at 215 million euros, up from 184 million euros in 2015. The figure was above an analysts’ average forecast of 191.8 million euros in a Reuters poll. Including oil inventories and a one-off insurance compensation, EBITDA jumped to 303 million euros, from 31 million euros in the last quarter of 2015, helped by inventory gains of 82 million euros – thanks to a rise in crude oil prices.

The European Commission (EC) approved Germany’s scheme to roll out a network of user-friendly infrastructure for charging electric vehicles across the country. According to the EC’s announcement, the plan, which costs €300 million over four years, requires that electricity for the charging infrastructure comes from renewable energy sources with contracts awarded through an open and transparent tender procedure. The EC said that Germany’s plan is in line with EU state aid rules. “Electric vehicles can provide real benefits to society by reducing harmful emissions and noise pollution. The German support scheme will encourage consumers and businesses to use electric vehicles. It will provide the necessary infrastructure in a cost-effective way in line with EU state aid rules,” said EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager. The EC also said it considers that such measures will encourage a significant uptake of electric vehicles and therefore make a major contribution towards meeting the common interest of reducing emissions and improving air quality. The measures will also support the European strategy for low-emission mobility, in particular in terms of the objective of speeding up the deployment of lowemission alternative energy for transport and contributing to the decarbonization agenda, according to the EC.

EU: Energy consumption is now bellow its 1990 level Energy consumption in the EU is now below its 1990 level but EU dependency on fossil fuel imports is still on the rise. In 2015, gross inland energy consumption, which reflects the energy quantities necessary to satisfy all inland consumption, amounted in the European Union (EU) to 1 626 million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe), below its 1990 level (-2.5%) and down by 11.6% compared to its peak of almost 1 840 Mtoe in 2006. Accounting for nearly three-quarters of EU consumption of energy in 2015, fossil fuels continued to represent by far the main source of energy, although their weight has constantly decreased over the past decades, from 83% in 1990 to 73% in 2015. However, over this period, EU dependency on imports of fossils fuels has increased, with 73% imported in 2015 compared with just over half (53%) in 1990. In other words, while in 1990 one tonne of fossil fuels was imported for each tonne produced in the EU, by 2015 three tonnes were imported for each tonne produced. These figures are issued by Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union, and are complemented with an article on energy saving in the EU.

Romanian Black Sea natural gas production to start in 2018 Black Sea Oil & Gas will kick off Romania’s Black Sea natural gas production in mid-2018, when Romania is expected to become a natural gas exporter as well, said Niculae Havrilet, Chairman of Romania’s National Energy Regulatory Authority (ANRE). “Starting next year, a new important natural gas sources of 4 billion cubic metres a year will be commissioned, namely the natural gas discovered in the Black Sea. Local operators and investors have shown us that next July 1 a new structure will be commissioned. From that moment on, Romania virtually becomes an exporter, because the new structure will generate a surplus that exceeds normal demand in Romania,” said Havrilet. He added that Black Sea Oil & Gas has taken under lease two oil blocks on Romania’s Black Sea continental shelf – Midia and Pelican. Havrilet said production in the first year of existence there should be 1 billion cubic metre, to be incremented afterwards to 4 billion cubic metres a year. “Production in the first year of operation should be 1 billion cubic metre, to be incremented afterward to 4 billion cubic metres against Romania’s 2107 consumption of 12 billion cubic metres a year and normal imports of between 500 and 600 million cubic metres a year. The first year’s production will virtually cancel out the need for natural gas imports, and, what’s more, Romania will have to secure conditions for gar exports for the investor to be able to recoup its investment costs,” added Havrilet.


Electric Grid Optimization Yiannis Pispirigos

03 8

SMART METERS: THE ENERGY-SAVING REVOLUTION Smart meters can dethrone the original smart grid device. More than a decade after the earliest models of communicating electric meters were deployed, the market for advanced metering infrastructure (AMI, or smart meters) remains strong and growing.

To get a snapshot of where the smart electric meter market stands today and where it is headed in the future, we must gain an understanding of the regional disparity inherent in smart meter pursuits. The degree to which particular countries and regions have adopted smart electric meters are often as different as the cultures within, and thus the technology should be studied within a geographic framework to get a full understanding of the market. The purpose of our research is to further this understanding by way of regional forecasts of total electric meters, smart electric meters, and the underlying communications technologies enabling these smart devices from 2016 to 2025. We are in the midst of a paradigm shift in the way we generate, transmit, and distribute electricity. Smart meters are a fundamental component of the evolving grid and are creating unprecedented amounts of new data–data that can be used to improve outage response and grid reliability while also educating consumers of their energy use patterns. The smart meter movement has shown no signs of slowing down soon;

According to the latest information, global smart electric meter penetration will grow from approximately to 53 percent in 2025, crossing the 50 percent mark in 2024. Global smart meter revenue is expected to increase to over $10.7 billion in 2025 (from approximately $8.8 billion in 2016).

The global pioneers

When looking at the current state of the smart metering landscape, relatively mature markets can be found in North America, Western Europe, and pockets of Asia Pacific. North America is one of the most mature markets, with Canada nearing full penetration and the United States making remarkable strides through the Smart Grid Investment Grant Program. As of year-end E2016, North America is predicted to pass the 50 percent penetration level, with sustained growth from late adopting investorowned utilities and an expected uptick in public utility deployments. Western Europe is also no stranger to smart meters, as countries like Italy and Sweden are pioneers of the smart meter revolution. Surrounding countries have


followed suit with large-scale rollouts of their own, including Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom, among others. A key smart meter driver in Europe is the European Union’s (EU’s) target of 80 percent penetration by 2020, though the EU is expected to fall short of this goal given various project delays and pushback from certain member states. While Eastern Europe trails its Western counterpart in smart meter activity, current and future projects in Estonia, Poland, Romania, and Russia are expected to lead to penetration gains across the region. In Asia Pacific, China has separated itself as a regional and global leader in smart meter implementation. As China’s massive smart meter rollout comes to a close in 2017, countries like India, Malaysia, and Taiwan are expected to capture the market for new shipments while China pivots toward replacement and upgrade units. The overall success of the smart meter market within the region rests with the fate of India, given the country’s sheer size and its ambitious smart meter targets moving forward.


While new smart meter deployments will continue, notice should be given to the burgeoning replacement and upgrade market. Naturally, as the installed base of smart meters continues to grow, the market for replacement and upgrade units will grow as well. Looking forward, these replacement units will account for an increasingly large share of overall smart meter shipments. This market is further sustained by the shorter lifecycles attached to smart meters relative to traditional electromechanical meters. While traditional meters may have lasted for 20-plus years, modern smart meters are typically replaced or upgraded after only 5-10 years. These shorter lifespans are a product of multiple factors, including consumer awareness, technological advancement, and product standards. Consumers can play a role in smart meter lifecycles through the voicing of safety and privacy concerns, which in turn may sway the utility to upgrade their technologies sooner than anticipated. The rapid pace at which smart meter technology is evolving also creates the

potential for shorter replacement rates in the future as new functionalities and applications promote the business case for upgraded smart meter fleets. Another potential market driver includes emerging product standards, which may force utilities to upgrade their smart meters in order to meet the criteria set forth by local governments or independent safety organizations.

Long-term technology transformation When moving to the less developed smart meter markets, there’s still some low-hanging fruit ripe for the picking. Latin America, the Middle East & Africa, and parts of Eastern Europe and Asia Pacific have yet to fully embrace the smart meter revolution, though this is changing as utility and countrywide deployments begin to populate and replace the pilot-scale projects that have traditionally characterized the regions. Theft and revenue protection, increasing electricity demand and lower operating costs are driving new smart meter deployments in these areas and will hopefully provide positive case studies


Consumers can play a role in smart meter lifecycles through the voicing of safety and privacy concerns, which in turn may sway the utility to upgrade their technologies sooner than anticipated for surrounding countries that have yet to pull the trigger on smart meter deployments. And while certain areas of these less developed markets are still plagued by issues such as low electrification rates, lack of consumer demand and awareness, lack of

regulatory support and/or financial constraints, there is a notable increase in activity that supports a forecast of strong growth in the coming decade. In Latin America, countries like Brazil and Mexico are expected to go a long way in determining the overall market size of the region given that they account for more than 60 percent of its total electric meters. Mexico has already committed to ambitious smart meter targets through its state-run Comision Federal de Electricidad (CFE). The future of the Brazilian smart meter market, on the other hand, is somewhat ambiguous given the current political and economic climate of the country, conditions which have delayed project executions. The Middle East and Africa have also been slow-moving in the deployment of large volumes of smart electric meters. While these regions have primarily experimented with pilot-scale projects up until now, that is expected to change over the forecast period, particularly in the Middle East. In the Middle East, smart meter activity is expected to be supported by countries like Kuwait,

Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. In Africa, deployments have predominately been limited to South Africa and Nigeria until now. Looking forward, Egypt is expected to play a critical role in driving smart meter activity, as the country has announced plans to install up to 30 million smart meters over a 10-year period. The adoption of smart electric meters by utilities is part of a long-term technology transformation to create a more intelligent grid. The rate of adoption will vary by region, but over time, smart meters will become the norm. For smart meter and infrastructure vendors, the next 10 years represent growth opportunities as more utilities move to smart meters and AMI deployments. They will be challenged by the need to differentiate their products and provide features tailored to a variety of utilities while facing price competition.

Electric Grid Optimization Penelope Mitroulia


STILL WAITING FOR SMART METERS IN GREECE In July, 2014, HEDNO, the Greek power distribution company, announced a tender for the installation of 200.000 smart electricity meters.

Today, two and a half years after the announcement, the tender continues with another episode in development, since HEDNO awaits the decision of the Council of State about the injunction submitted by one of the two companies that participated. The decision is expected to be announced at the end of February, causing yet another delay in a case on which the next tender for installing smart meters around the country relies on. The awarding of the pilot installation of 200.000 smart meters is important when it comes to the chosen technology and also for the next tender about the reinstalling of 80% of the countries electricity meters, some 6 million of them, with a budget of over one billion Euros. This is the reason why the clash between the two consortia that feud over the tender is so tough. It should be noted that the board of directors of HEDNO has already rejected an injunction made by the consortium

OTE-Intrakat-Intrasoft International against the tender and in particular against its financial assessment.

Terms & setbacks

The tender is underbidding and Intracom Telecom has been declared as the underbidder with an offer of 46 million euros versus 62 million euros in the case of the consortium OTE-IntrakatIntrasoft International. Thus, the consortium decided to proceed with interim measures against the decision of HEDNO to choose Intracom Telecom as the underbidder. If the Council of State’s decision is negative, HEDNO will proceed with announcing Intracom Telecom as the concessionaire and as soon as it receives the approval from the Court of Audit, it will sign the contract. In a different case, if the Council of State accepts OTE-Intrakat-Intrasoft International’s interim measures against the tender, then the tender will be cancelled and it will have to be proclamated again.



This will translate into new delays for the big tender for the installation of 7,5 million smart meters, which according to the country’s obligations under European law, will have to be completed by 2020. The financing of the one billion Euro project depends on the timetable for its completion.

The importance of smart meters The board of HEDNO emphasizes the importance of replacing existing meters with digital, “smart” meters, because in this way a new, sound foundation will be created for upgrading the power distribution networks.

Smart meters will be able to record consumption in more than one intra-day time zones, they offer great flexibility in demand management, they allow the consumer to know his consumption profile in order to save power and also they make easier the production of electricity from the consumers themselves. Through the pilot installation of 200.000 meters, which will be installed in residential customers and small

businesses (all of them in the low voltage segment), two broadcasting technologies will be assessed; Wired (Power Line Carrier) and wireless through GPRS/3G. It should be noted that telemetry and the developing of smart grids are included in HEDNO’s business plan for the next five years. According to an EU directive and also the Greek Energy ministry’s own decision, smart meters will have to be installed in 80% of the network’s connections by 2020. Smart meters will replace old PPC meters in order for the numeration of power consumption to be conducted digitally (and not by HEDNO’s and PPC’s crews every four months), thus providing constant information about every account both to HEDNO and the consumer. Today, HEDNO has installed 60.000 smart meters in low voltage consumers. HEDNO’s business plan also includes the developing of “smart” grids, that

will ensure better quality and customer service with lower cost. The investments for these networks amount to a few hundred million euros and will be separate than the ones about smart meters.

HEDNO’s smart grid projects

In total, there are 12 strategic projects of HEDNO, included in its operational planning. Most important among them are the ones that contribute to its adaptation into the new power market environment, according to international developments in smart grids, online services and the fight against climate change. Those 12 projects are the following; 1. Modernization of the central command networks in Attica. 2. The creation of a central command for the islands’ networks. 3. Modernization of the networks in the rest of the country.


There are 12 strategic projects of HEDNO, included in its operational planning. Most important are the ones that contribute to its adaptation into the new power market environment, according to international developments in smart grids, online services and the climate change

4. Upgrading the telemetry equipment of networks. 5. Installation of a geographic information system. 6. New information system for customer online services. 7. Installation of online customer service system. 8. Upgrading the programming for networks advancement. 9. Developing the infrastructure for the non-connected islands, in order to apply the NCI code. 10. Employing and extending the “smart islands” initiative 11. Employing and extending the use of telemetric in the low voltage segment. 12. Reorganizing the supply chain. The first group of strategic projects is part of the wider effort of creating “smart grids” and it includes telemetric

and automation works, such as the modernization of the control centers for the networks of Attica and their aggregation in a single command post. The same applies for the creation of a control centers of the island networks until 2019, through the modernization and aggregation of the control centers of the rest of the country in three peripheral posts until 2019, as well as the installation until 2020 of the necessary telemetry and automation elements, in order for those centers to be able to properly manage the networks of the country and remotely check their basic breakers.

Electric Grid Optimization Emilia Damian

05 14

THE DEVELOPMENT OF SMART METERS IN ROMANIA Romania wants to develop smart meters for 80% of the energy consumers by 2020.

The Romanian energy market is set to implement smart grids and smart metering. The goal is 80 percent of implementation by 2020 and 100 percent by 2022, according to the National Regulatory Authority for Energy (ANRE). The rate of implementation, however, can significantly impact the present net values of the investments, depending on whether the company opted for faster installation in the case of electricity, and even a slower, much smoother implantation in the gas market, said a study made by A.T. Kearny. For the heating market, smart metering does not bring sufficient added value to offset the high costs of the investment. Current market conditions in the Romanian central district heating market make the modernization of grids a top priority for companies, followed by the investment in the submetering system. “Although smart metering for heating is not a viable option, we believe that submetering would bring significant benefits at a very low cost, and suggest

it as the potential alternative solution”, the study also said.

Loss reduction

For the electricity market in Romania, smart metering can indeed bring added value, if the model has a middleware layer (data concentrators and balancing meters) and communication of data is made through PLC wiring from the meters to the concentrators and through various communication ways from concentrators to the central application. Other technology architectures can be considered if they bring additional value. Biggest benefits from smart metering for the electricity sector come from the reduction of commercial losses and meter-reading costs. “The business case for electricity is positive, but with certain risks: We considered, based on other market data, that smart metering will bring a reduction of 60 percent in commercial losses by the end of the implementation period. We believe this is a realistic scenario, however, it‘s highly sensitive to the following: A reduction of commercial


losses of only 30 percent (pessimistic scenario) makes the business case only slightly positive. Next to the roll-out, companies will have to ensure that stateof-the-art processes are put in place, and that additional efforts are made regarding necessary transformations in current organizational models,” according to A.T. Kearney. For the gas market, current findings given current assumptions show negative results, regardless of whether the implementation model uses a common infrastructure with electricity. Opting for the common communication infrastructure, thereby connecting the gas smart meters to the electrical ones seems to bring the best overall results.

Enel has big plans

Enel, the biggest foreign investor on the energy distribution market in Romania, wants to install 110,000 additional smart meters in Romania. National Regulatory Authority for Energy ANRE has given Enel this permission, as part of a pilot project. A local Romanian subsidiary of the Italian utility company installed smart meters for more than 30,000 clients last year.

“As the needs of clients evolve through the introduction of smart home appliances and distributed generation, which helps them become small energy producers, the installation of smart meters will become even more important.” Georgios Stassis, country manager Enel in Romania

Enel is said to have plans to install similar meters for all 2.7 million clients in Romania, paving the way for larger smart cities and infrastructure. Georgios Stassis, country manager Enel in Romania, said: “As the needs of clients evolve through the introduction of smart home appliances and distributed generation, which helps them become small energy producers, the installation of smart meters will become even more important.” The smart meters are also purposed to pinpoint areas that have significant issues with power outages and where further investment is needed. Enel bought in Romania three former state-owned distribution grids: Muntenia, Dobrogea and Banat. Enel will add 53,000 smart meters in the Muntenia region, while in Dobrogea and Banat regions it will install 28,000 and 30,000, respectively. Enel controls around one third of the electricity distribution market in Romania and employs over 3,100 people.

Electric Grid Optimization Dr. Stanislav Yordanov*

06 16

Smart meters in Bulgaria: Still solving low tech problems Is there a way to stop endemic electricity theft by customers? The usual approach might be to call the police. But in Bulgaria, where law enforcement is weak, the answer, quite surprisingly, could be smart metering.

With the implementation of the new system by the local electricity distribution company in the Bulgarian town of Varna, one of the worst offenders – the Maksuda quarter reached 99% payment of the electricity bills and 0% non-technical losses of electricity. It took less than 2 years for the miraculous turnaround given the fact that before the implementation of the smart metering only 10% of the costumers were paying their bills, while the non-technical losses reached a staggering 50%. The example shows that smart meters sometimes could have pretty down to earth usage. However, they spread globally in recent years mainly as one of key components of smart grids. The main objective of smart metering is to provide two-way communication between electricity consumers, local small renewable energy producers and energy storages and distribution system operators, thus providing a possibility for demand response, flexible tariffs offering, etc. At the level of distribution system

operator, which in Bulgaria owns the commercial metering devices, functions of the smart metering system contribute to reduction of operational costs. Despite its advantages, the main disadvantage of smart metering systems is relatively high investment costs for its implementation. According to the requirements of the Third Energy Package, the EU Member States have a commitment to assess the economic feasibility for the implementation of smart metering systems. If economically feasible, a roll out plan for installing electricity smart meters of at least 80 percent of customers by 2020 shall be prepared. A report by the Energy and Water Regulatory Commission (the Bulgarian energy regulation authority), on “The requirement of Directive 2009/72 / EC on the implementation of electricity smart metering systems� concludes that: Cost-benefit analyses regarding implementation of smart metering systems did not prove that implementation of said systems is economically justified.


The negative assessment for the implementation of smart metering systems does not call for preparation of a roll out plan by the Regulator. Costs, benefits and social impacts of the smart metering systems deployment are specific for each particular country. It is therefore appropriate for the installation policy to be in line with technological and social policies of the electricity distribution companies. Funding should be provided by public funds under EU programs and must not lead to an increase in the grid fees. Obviously for the electricity sector, aimed at ensuring quality supply of electricity to end customers with minimal investment and operational costs, an investment of about â‚Ź 400 million for obligatory deployment of smart meters without external financial support is a strenuous task. Respectively, lack in mass deployment of smart metering system does not anticipate an implementation of smart grids. However, with reference to point three in the conclusions of the Bulgarian energy

regulator, there remains an open question under what conditions the investment in smart metering, which will not increase the grid fees, would be lucrative for electricity distribution companies.

The investment payback period is different for specific regions, depending on the input parameters (especially the level of non-technical losses, costs for reading and disconnection of meters).

Why does smart metering matter?

In areas where high percentage of non-technical losses and debts are commonplace, the payback period, calculated without discounting, could be less than two years, as in the already mentioned example of the Maksuda quarter in the Bulgarian town of Varna.

Smart metering deployment results in both quantitative and qualitative improvements. Some of the benefits cannot be measured financially. In general, the following benefits are financially quantifiable by objective criteria under the Bulgarian energy sector conditions: Reduction of non-technical losses of electricity through the function of smart metering system to provide data for hourly energy balance and antitampering features of the smart meters; Reduction of meter reading costs due to the remote metering function of the system; Reduction of costs for disconnection/ re-connection and improvement of receivables collection rate supported by the function of the system for remote meters‘ operation.

In general, for a city like Varna (about 200,000 meters, 1 TWh annual consumption and 5% non-technical losses), the payback period, calculated without discounting, is between 7.5 and 9.5 years. This period could be further reduced in case of system usage to provide system or balancing services to the transmission system operator, reading of meters of other utilities or management of street lighting, which currently are not implemented. Undoubtedly, there are many benefits related to the customer awareness, analysis, development and offering of


innovative services and tariffs, market liberalization, improving the quality of supplied electricity, etc., which will inevitably lead to qualitative changes and thus to financial improvements.

How smart is the metering in Bulgaria? Bulgarian electricity distribution companies are owned by CEZ Bulgaria, EVN Bulgaria and ENERGO-PRO Varna. These three companies operate about 5 400 000 commercial electricity meters that can be replaced with smart meters. All three companies have a smart metering system, supplied by ADD Bulgaria. The system supplied complies with the common minimum functional specification of smart systems for electricity metering described in the Recommendation of the European Commission on preparations for the rollout of smart metering systems, dated March 9, 2012 (2012/148 / EC). The implemented system utilizes mainly Power Line Carrier (PLC) for communication between meters and data concentrators. Older versions of the system use frequency-shift keying (FSK) and spread frequency shift keying (S-FSK) technology, while the latest version uses PRIME. CEZ and ENERGO-PRO, which currently operate approximately 3,600,000 meters in the country, installed about 30 000

and 100000 smart meters, respectively. The system is mainly used to reduce non-technical losses, remote reading and disconnection as well as for hourly consumption metering for the customers in the liberalized market. EVN has already installed approximately 400 000 smart meters and in the next four years it is planning the installation of another 550 000. Furthermore, the company uses the system for reading of heat meters of Plovdiv District Heating utility, which is a part of the EVN Bulgaria group.

Could it be better?

In the modern energy sector, smart metering systems are a powerful tool, the implementation of which creates (i) advantages for the distribution system operators and (ii) a prerequisite for the deployment of smart grids, as well as benefits to the society related to improving information and services, reduction of energy costs, integration of renewable energy sources and others. Unfortunately, in Bulgaria only the advantages for distribution system operators are currently implemented. This provides very limited benefits for their customers, mainly related to the correctness of the meters’ reading, information for their consumption and partial improvement in quality of supplied electricity and it therefore does not provide key smart grid opportunities related to demand response services, flexible tariff structures, dynamic energy

supplier change, etc. However, as evidenced by the policies of distribution systems operators, investment in the deployment of such systems in Bulgaria could be profitable. This profitability can be further increased through provision of services to municipalities, other utilities, as well as system and balancing services. There is great potential for the implementation of smart grid options in the Bulgarian electricity sector, including demand response services, flexible tariff structures, dynamic energy supplier change, etc. since Bulgaria is one of the European countries with the largest share of electricity used for heating, cooling and water heating for household needs. As first necessary step towards this, the liberalization of the electricity market in Bulgaria, is already a fact. Investments in and experience with smart metering systems are also present. The transition to the next phase and the introduction of these more advanced market models requires political will and minor changes in the regulatory framework in order to encourage their deployment.

*Dr Stanislav Yordanov is a Project Manager at Fichtner /SYNEC, Germany. Previously Mr. Yordanov was Head of Energy Data and Meters Management at E.ON Bulgaria Grid. Also he held various positions in the company, as an electrical and power engineer.

Electric Grid Optimization Kristian Ruby*


New regulation: very costly for some EU Members Secretary General of Union of the Electricity Industry EURELECTRIC Kristian Ruby is speaking for EnergyWorld Magazine about reasons for slower than planned rollout of smart meters at a EU level and how this can be done more effectively. He also told us why Eurelectric means harmonised exchange of data is very important and what Clean Energy Package means for smart meters.

How important are smart meters for EU energy strategy and for consumers? Very important. Eurelectric is a strong advocate of smart meters. Smart meters are key to realising the full potential of renewable energy and energy savings, as well as to the smooth functioning of the European energy market and a secure energy supply. They are one of the main tools to enhance competition on retail markets and foster energy efficiency, making retail market processes such as switching, billing and moving, and network operation more efficient. Regarding consumers, smart meters empower them to participate actively in the “smart, new energy market�. They can allow consumers to get a clear understanding of their consumption and change their energy usage habits. Smart meters also benefit consumers insofar as their retailer maybe able to offer them better products (e.g. flexible payment schemes and new tariff models such as time of use prices) and a range of valueadded (energy management) services. EC says that smart metering and smart grids rollout can reduce emissions by

up to 9% and annual household energy consumption by similar amounts. What are results in countries which are already using smart meters? Eurelectric does not usually comment on national issues. Therefore, we having nothing to add on reduction of CO2 emissions and pollution beyond that provided by Member States themselves in their assessments as collected by the European Commission: few countries provide values. The EU’s 80% target for smart meters will not be met. Why? The rollout of smart meters at European level is indeed happening at a slower pace than expected. This is mainly because of varying cost-benefit analysis outcomes in different European countries, as well as data privacy and security concerns. Moreover, we think that there is a need for a harmonised process for the exchange of and access to meter data. This is mainly because the supplier must get consumption/generation measurements from any meter operator independent of its location, in the same



way that consumers must be able to get their historic data after having moved to another location. Expert Group (EG1) of Smart Grid Task Force set up by the European Commission has already looked into these processes used by EU Member States and how they could be aligned. What affects more the smart meters rollout - EU regulation or national regulation? They both affect the roll out of smart meters. The EU Electricity Directive which is part of the Clean Energy Package sets out the main goals and general principles/functionalities that all EU countries must achieve. Every Member State decides via national legislations how to achieve the goals set by the Clean Energy Package. The cost benefit analysis (CBA) requested by the EU Electricity Directive is also carried out at national level. The Third Energy Package set the goal that 80% of the consumers should have a smart electricity meter by 2020. Member States are to rollout smart meters assuming that their cost-benefit

analysis was positive. In fact, it was up to the Member States to define the methodology of this analysis. As a result, smart meters have already been installed or are planned to be installed in 14 EU Member States. What will Clean Energy Package change? At the end of last year,the European Commission published the Clean Energy Package which aims at better engaging consumers in the energy transition through a raft of new legislative proposals and initiatives covering retail and wholesale market functioning, European Union governance, renewable energy and energy efficiency. The package of measures proposes to increase the impetus on Members States to rollout smart meters with all recommended functionalities. The proposal also implies that Member States that will have rolled-out smart meters not complying with the outlined functionalities by the time the legislation comes into force, will need to upgrade them as they will no longer qualify as ‘smart’ enough. We should be very careful with this requirement, as

retrofitting/upgrading smart meters to some of these functionalities might be extremely costly. Can You tell us something more about requirement for Member States to upgrade smart meters as they will no longer qualify as ‘smart’ enough? This means that where the roll out of smart meters has been assessed positively, at least 80% of customers have to be provided with smart metering systems within 8 years from the date of their positive assessment or by 2020 for those Member States that have initiated the deployment before the entering into force of the Electricity Directive. Only for one functionality (art 20(g)ISP) the deadline is foreseen by 01/01/2025. We should be very careful with this requirement because European countries are at different stages of smart metering deployment and retrofitting and installing ICT systems behind the smart meters would imply extra costs in the sense that a forced roll-out of upgraded smart-meters would negatively affect the parties who have already invested in real-time measurement services,

Kristian Ruby


The rollout of smart meters at European level is indeed happening at a slower pace than expected. This is mainly because of varying costbenefit analysis outcomes in different European countries, as well as data privacy and security concerns

and could possibly end up paying for a double investment. What this means “might be extremely costly? We cannot give you an exact figure, but that was a common concern raised by the majority of our members. We can see fast rollout in Italy and Spain and very slow in Germany, Hungary and Slovakia. What does this tell us? Indeed, European countries are at different stages of smart metering deployment for residential electricity customers. The extent and speed of installation depends on the result of the national cost-benefit assessment (CBAs) and national plans. In Hungary for example, it was agreed that the rollout period is between 20152023 with 80% coverage by 2021. Germany and Slovakia opted only for partial rollout by 2020. On the other hand, the large-scale rollout undertaken in Italy between 2001 and 2010 and the rollout of the second

generation of smart meters is expected to start in March 2017. In Spain, we expect the traditional meters to be replaced by the end of 2018.

* Kristian Ruby is a widely recognised expert with a strong communication profile and extensive experience in political affairs. He joined EURELECTRIC from Wind Europe, where he served as Chief Policy Officer and was in charge of development and implementation of the political strategy. Prior to this, Ruby worked as a journalist and served seven years as a public servant in the Danish Ministries of Environment, and Climate and Energy and in the European Commission in the cabinet of the former Climate Action chief, Connie Hedegaard. Kristian holds a master`s degree in history and international development.

Electric Grid Optimization John Harris*

08 22

We must find FAIR way of distributing the cost burden In majority of the markets regulatory framework support “traditional” network investments rather than smart technologies, because there is a greater emphasis on capital expenditures. Smart technologies have low capex compared to the operating expenditures. So, if we have regulatory regime that places more emphasis on total expenditure and looks at the benefits that smart metering brings across the value chain, we could get better distribution of smart meters cost pie. The European Commission is now doing something about this - says John Harris, Vice-President of ESMIG and Chairman of the ESMIG Regulation and Policy Group.

Who is to blame for failure of EU’s 80 percent target for smart meters? I don’t think it is appropriate to really place “blame” on anyone. The EU’s 3rd Energy Package set the target of 80% coverage of EU households with smart meters by 2020 – but with certain provisions. For example, the Member States could – there is no requirement to do so – conduct a Cost-Benefit-Analysis (CBA) on “which form of intelligent metering is economically reasonable and cost-effective and which timeframe is feasible for their distribution.” In its analysis accompanying the socalled, “Clean Energy Package”, the Commission says that “many Member States have made wide use of caveats on technical feasibility and financial reasonableness/proportionality to make broad exceptions to the requirement to roll out smart metering.” It is true, that we have seen rollouts that have come later and with lower numbers of meters than the industry would have liked. As in many other issues the point of contention was money – how should the “cost pie” be divided up.

The cost of installing a smart meter in the EU is on average between 200 and 250 euro. Who is paying this? First of all, I would question your premise that the costs of having a smart meter are that high. There are a number of variables that go into calculating the cost of smart metering systems as the Commission’s benchmarking report from 2014 showed – this report is due to be updated this year. Much depends on the functionalities of the meters, how often the meters are read and type of communication technology used, just to name a few aspects. The major discussions at the Member State level have been exactly what you are asking – who pays for what. The Council of European Energy Regulators (CEER) has given much thought to the type of regulatory regime that would support investments in smart technologies – of all sorts – not just smart metering. One of the hurdles to be overcome is that most current regulatory environments support “traditional” network investments, i.e. copper and steel rather than smart technologies, because there is a greater emphasis on

John Harris


capital expenditures in the regulatory regimes. With smart technologies, including smart metering, the capex is relatively low compared to the operating expenditures. Therefore, moving to a regulatory regime that places more emphasis on total expenditure and looks at the benefits that smart metering brings across the value chain, might be a more equitable way of distributing the cost burden. The Commission addresses this issue in the Clean Energy Package when they propose that consumers contribute to the costs of smart meter rollouts in a fair and transparent manner. On 30 November 2016, the European Commission published a Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the internal market in electricity. What changes does it bring for smart meters? There are a number of proposed additions to the smart metering provisions from the 3rd Energy package, and generally we see them as positive. Right now, we are still in the “opinionbuilding” process in ESMIG, but at first glance there are a number of issues that we could support. For instance, we welcome the fact that the smart metering provisions have been moved from an annex in the 3rd Energy Package’s electricity directive to the main body of legislative text in this proposal. Also, the Commission proposes definitions for smart metering and interoperability which were missing previously and addresses the issue of meter data management for the first time.

Proposal entitles every consumer to request a smart meter equipped with a minimum set of functionalities. How do you comment this? Of course, every European consumer who wants a smart meter should be able to get one, regardless of whether the Member State in which he or she lives had a positive cost-benefit assessment (CBA) or not. The proposal says that where smart metering is negatively assessed in the CBA, or not systematically rolled out, for example in cases of a selective rollout, like Germany, consumers are still entitled to a smart meter. The smart meter that the consumer can get has to meet certain functionality and interoperability requirements. All in all, it is a very reasonable proposal. There are concerns about data protection regarding smart meters. Are consumers data safe? Yes – consumer data is safe in smart metering. When a Member State decides to rollout smart metering, data protection and security are always part of the specifications. EU guidelines specify a “security by design” approach and ESMIG is developing its own security approach to assist and advise those Member States that have yet to rollout. There are also other legal requirements at the EU level on data protection that smart metering systems and their operators – in most cases the DSOs fall under that require them to show what data is collected and how it is protected. How important are smart meters for consumers? Incredibly important! We see smart metering as the greatest consumer empowerment tool to come to the energy

industry in the last 100 years! What other product does a consumer buy whose volume and cost are not known until the end of the year? But it is about more than just getting accurate information to the consumer on consumption and costs. Smart Metering opens up many new possibilities in the area of demand response, home automation, self-generation and consumption. That is why the Commission has devoted so much attention to making sure that the smart metering systems installed are interoperable with these other technologies. Moreover, there is a considerable body of research that shows that consumers can save a considerable amount of money on their electricity bill through direct feed-back of their energy consumption and costs.

*John Harris is Vice President, Head of Governmental Affairs and Public Relations, for Landis+Gyr AG since March 2008. He previously worked in Energy Policy for E.ON Energie AG, both in the company’s headquarters in Munich, Germany, and in the E.ON EU Representative Office in Brussels. In 1999 he joined DaimlerChrysler AG in Stuttgart, following tenure as Deputy Director of the German-American Center in Stuttgart. Before coming to Europe, Mr. Harris was a Police Officer with the Boulder, Colorado Police Department and spent four years in the United States Marine Corps. John Harris holds an M.A. in International Economics and European Studies from the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) in Washington, D.C., and a B.A. summa cum laude in German Literature and International Affairs from the University of Colorado in Boulder, USA.

Electric Grid Optimization Hans ten Berge*

09 24

EUROPE’S UPCOMING ENERGY REVOLUTION With decarbonization and decentralization, the power sector is undergoing one of the most profound changes in its history. While an increasing share of energy sources are decentralized, such as onshore wind or photovoltaic panels on the horooftops of houses, new technology allows for new types of customers to emerge, and they are generally more aware and demanding, more active and engaged. Twenty years after the First Energy Package, the upcoming review of the EU electricity market design legislation is a unique opportunity to set future-proof principles for prosumers.

Europe has moved beyond the early deployment of distributed generation, with a growing number of consumers producing electricity for their own needs and selling their excess electricity to the market or to other consumers. For prosumers to do so in the most efficient way, a cost-effective market-based regulatory framework that empowers prosumers to participate in the market and ensures that costs are not unduly shifted to other consumers is needed. In countries where market liberalization has been completed, consumers can select a service provider to produce part of their electricity themselves. While they generate and consume their own electricity, most prosumers remain connected to the power grid, which guarantees them a continuous supply of electricity by providing backup power when their photovoltaic panels and storage device are not sufficient to meet their demand. Prosumers have become a building block for the energy transition; they can contribute to a more sustainable power system while gaining increased control over their energy uses. Via smart grids, prosumers

can send their electricity back to the grid, charge the battery of their electric vehicles, help integrate larger shares of variable renewable energy sources in the grid, and – by providing decentralized flexibility resources – contribute to avoiding costly network reinforcement. However, prosumers will only be able to participate in electricity markets on a level playing field with other assets if smart grids are coupled with a timely roll out of smart meters. Indeed adequate metering data, with granular enough reading intervals, is another enabler for prosumers to become more active. Moreover, via smart meters, they can choose among a wider variety of services that energy companies could offer, for instance, taking care of balancing responsibilities on their behalf. The Council of European Energy Regulators recommended that member states abandon non-marketbased net metering solutions, which allow meters to go backwards when electricity is self-generated. Net-metering reduces consumers’ sensitivity to energy prices and allows them to shift their consumption when the price is


significantly different. Instead, smart metering and smart grids make it possible to measure the injection and consumption of electricity separately and frequently enough to base the pricing of excess electricity on the varying wholesale prices and to incentivize customers to respond. Beyond these innovations, the current signals for prosumers to invest and operate their own generation or storage assets need to be clarified to prevent unnecessary distortions to the overall energy system. In many countries, the electricity bill is used to recover regulated costs, such as network costs and policy- support costs related to the ongoing efforts to decarbonize the energy system and to bring more renewables on board. European households pay 36% of their bill to cover for taxes and policy-support costs, 27% for network charges and only 37% for the electricity supply. As these costs are often charged in euros/ kWh, when prosumers self-consume 1 kWh of their own electricity, they contribute much less to these “system� costs, which are, therefore, partially

shifted to the other consumers. This will require additional analysis on the way network tariffs are designed because they should reflect the value of the network to all those connected to ensure a fair contribution of all consumers. The recovery of the fixed costs of building, operating and maintaining networks should be well articulated. One possible way to improve the situation could be to evolve toward more capacity-based network tariffs to ensure that consumers as well as prosumers connected to the network pay for the grid they use. Regarding the policy-support costs, member states should seek ways to free the electricity bill from the disproportionate levies that burden electricity consumers but also ensure that the way they are charged does not give artificial investment signals that result in a massive shift of costs to other consumers. For example, policy-support costs could be charged with a mix of euros/kW and euros/kWh, depending on consumers or prosumers’ consumption volumes and patterns. Finally, to better integrate final

consumers into the system, retailers should be able to develop innovative products such as retail offers linked to wholesale market prices fluctuations (dynamic pricing) that give signals for shifting consumption. A more dynamic approach to network tariffs, to reflect the situation in the grid, also should be further investigated. To allow the energy revolution to happen in the most costefficient way, consumers, energy companies and policy-makers must help design a regulatory framework that is adapted to the needs of the moment but also to the challenges ahead.

*Hans ten Berge was Secretary General of European electricity industry association EURELECTRIC for ten years.

Oil & gas Stevan Veljovic

10 26

Second chance for Serbia-Bulgaria gas interconnection

The long awaited project of gas connection between Serbia and Bulgaria will have another chance to succeed. Amid busy activities of EU and neighboring countries to connect gas systems in the Balkans, Serbia and Bulgaria signed a new memorandum, with a vision to complete the interconnection by 2020.

Serbian and Bulgarian ministers of energy, Aleksandar Antic and Temenuzhka Petkova, signed on January 19 in Sofia, a Memorandum of understanding on construction of a gas connection between the two countries. The two countries agreed to start the construction of the pipeline in 2019, in order to become operative by the end of 2020. Serbian energy minister said the MoU signed was the most important step in the realization of the project of construction of a gas interconnection between Bulgaria and Serbia. “In this memorandum we defined key elements of the project, common technical elements, access points, capacities, all key issues related to the implementation of the project “, Antic said on January, 19 in Sofia. The expected cost of constructing the pipeline on Serbian side, from Nis to Dimitrovgrad, is around €80 million. Antic said that Serbia expects to secure financing of the project from IPA 2017 program, which would become operative in 2018, while Bulgaria agreed on financing from the position of EU member.

“Bulgaria has guaranteed financing of EUR 45 million for the project,” Temenuzhka Petkova remarked. Petkova signed the agreement as the outgoing minister, and new energy minister, Nikolay Pavlov, took over the office on January, 27. “In the memorandum, we pledged to start the works in 2019 on both sides, but I expect that they will start in 2018”, Antic noted. This document is not the first that the two countries had signed with the intention to ensure diversification of routes, gas connectivity and transmission. In December, 2012, prime ministers of Serbia and Bulgaria, Ivica Dacic and Bojko Borisov signed a simillar Memorandum on construction of the pipeline between Nis and Sofia. In the Memorandum signed more than four years ago, it was agreed that the works would start in 2013, and the completion of the connection was expected by 2015. The total length of route is 150 kilometers, of which two thirds are on the Serbian, and one


third on the Bulgarian territory. It was expected that construction of the pipeline will provide an option for delivery of up to 1.8 bcm/y of natural gas in both directions, with opportunity to further increase the volumes up to 4.5 bcm/y. However, during the last more than four years, between 2012 and 2017, little progress has been made, and the preparations would have to start quickly in order to keep up with the new timeline.

Troubles with financing

The project faced difficulties from the beginning, mostly on the financial side. As an EW source, involved in the project, claims, Serbia had under less favorable conditions for financing than Bulgaria from the very beginning. As he explained, Serbia was supposed to receive around €15 million Serbia from IPA funds, while another €50 million was supposed to be secured from redirecting a part of €150 EBRD loan, granted to Srbijagas in 2010, which was not used in full. In 2017, according to minister Antic, Serbia expect to receive three to four times more funds in grants compared

to earlier agreements, or more than €45 million. However, Serbia failed to use most of the funds defined for this project. This included the budget money intended to be spent on project documentation and expropriation, as well as the IPA funds, as there was not enough evidence about the feasibility of the project, the EW source explained. Another issue was that the redirection of EBRD loan was conditioned with the start of restructuring of Srbijagas, a process which faced huge resistance from the company management and was already delayed at the time. Given the slow progress in project implementation so far, several issues still need to be dealt with before the works start. So far, the government had adopted a spatial plan for the project, but the expropriation process has yet to start. The capacity of the pipeline of 1.8 billion cubic meters almost equals Serbia’s average yearly consumption of gas twenty years later. The earliest attempt to

prepare a project dates back to 1990’s, when the intention was to build the pipeline between Serbia and Bulgaria as an alternative route for import of gas from Russia. The route of the pipeline was supposed to follow the route of road Corridor X to Bulgaria, but as the route of the highway changed, a new project documentation had to be made. The existence of the alternative route of supply would allow Serbia to reduce part of the cost of transit duties for the gas imported from Russia which is now paid to Hungary, as the transit country. Some estimates show that Serbia could have saved around $20 million annually if the alternative route through Bulgaria had existed. The initial idea of diversifying routes for supply of Russian gas is rarely mentioned nowadays, but the need for another route of supply is increasing with the risks of interruption of supply from the route that passes through Hungary. The importance of the pipeline between Serbia and Bulgaria for diversification of supply and Serbia’s energy safety can hardly be questioned.

Aleksandar Antic

Vojislav Vuletic

Jelica Putnikovic

With the preparations for the construction of a pipeline between Bulgaria and Greece, Serbia and other Balkan countries could potentially connect to other sources of gas via the projects of Trans-Anatolian natural gas pipeline (TANAP), Trans Adriatic pipeline (TAP) and LNG terminal in Alexandropoulis, provided that some quantities would become available

At the moment, there is no other viable project that could help Serbia reduce its dependence on a single route of supply and a single source in a relatively short period of time. The various possibilities, from connecting to LNG terminal in Croatia [on the island of Krk] and possible the interconnection to Romania [from Mokrin in Serbia to Arad in Romania], are still at a very early stage. Even though the connection with Bulgaria will not secure Serbia’s complete energy safety in the gas sector, it is more developed than other alternatives and will provide more options in the future compared to the present situation.

Azerbaijan, but also with the existing pipeline that carries Russian gas from Ukraine to Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria.


With the preparations for the construction of a pipeline between Bulgaria and Greece, Serbia and other Balkan countries could potentially connect to other sources of gas via the projects of Trans-Anatolian natural gas pipeline (TANAP), Trans Adriatic pipeline (TAP) and LNG terminal in Alexandropoulis, provided that some quantities would become available. The gas interconnector Greece-Bulgaria (IGB Pipeline) will provide a direct link between the gas systems of Greece and Bulgaria. The 180 kilometers long reverse-flow pipeline will be able to pump gas in both directions between Komotini, in Greece’s and Stara Zagora in Bulgaria. IGB will connect to the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline that will supply countries in Southern Europe with gas from

The importance of coordination with other projects was also emphasized on the signing of the MoU in Sofia, as “a gas connection between Bulgaria and Serbia makes sense only if it is line with the dynamic of works on interconnection between Greece and Bulgaria”.

Promises unfulfilled

The experts said that securing EU’s financial support is of great importance for the project’s successful implementation. It was also one of the reasons why the interconnection had not been built sooner, along with the issue of gas available for Serbia’s supply, which had also affected the project. Vojislav Vuletic, president of Association for gas of Serbia, reminded that, when projected at the end of 20th century, the pipeline between Serbia and Bulgaria was supposed to provide a reliable supply from another direction and to ensure the implementation of energy programs of Energogas, the company that was then responsible for the supply of gas to the central part of Serbia. “After October 5, 2000 [when the change of political regime occurred], Serbia’s economy was ruined, gas consumption was reduced and there were no economic reasons to construct the pipeline. Simply put, there was neither the economic, nor the energy


related reason to construct the pipeline”, Vuletic explained. He also noted that EU, which sought to connect gas systems of the Balkan countries, around 2010 pledged to give Bulgaria all the financing needed for constructing the pipeline on its territory, while Serbia was promised, maybe around 10 per cent of the funding. “Despite frequent talks and promises about constructing the pipeline, the works never started”, ne remarked. Jelica Putnikovic, editor of the, a web magazine, and energy analyst, said that the main reason why the works on the interconnection never started was that there was no gas on the Bulgarian side which Serbia could have imported. “For years, the project had been treated as a connection that would be good to have, but from which we should not expect much“, Putnikovic noted. She also reminded that the EU had insisted for Serbian authorities to construct the pipeline on its territory. “Until recently, they had done little to

provide financial assistance to Serbia for the project, while Bulgaria received €45 million already. If the EU doesn’t secure financing, the interconnection will remain only in plans”, Putnikovic said, adding that signing a new memorandum doesn’t guarantee that the works will actually start. The experts insist that neither Serbia, nor Bulgaria suffered from the delay of the construction. “Serbia has now started to connect with neighboring countries because it is a precondition to secure, if available, the gas for Serbian consumers from the Southern Corridor, through pipelines TANAP and TAP or the LNG terminal in Alexandropoulis”, Putnikovic said. She argued, however, that, like Hungary, Serbia should focus on securing a real connection to the gas from the Turkish Stream or the Nord Stream. “Russia officially confirmed that it intends to have two parallel pipelines of the Turkish Stream, one of them intended for supplying European consumers. “Now Serbia should try to lobby in Moscow

that this route should go through Serbia and not from Bulgaria to Romania”, Putnikovic added. Vuletic argued that, at the moment, Serbia would have no use for connecting with the gas system of Bulgaria, given that the possibility of supplying Serbia from other sources, including TAP and TANAP, is on “long stick” because they have no gas to offer to Serbia. “There is a theoretical possibility of supply from LNG terminal in Greece. The problem is, however, that it has small amounts available and the question is if Serbia would get any of it. On the other hand, the price of liquefied natural gas is not competitive with Russian gas”, he concluded.

Oil & gas Emilia Damian

11 30

BSOG could start production in 2019 in a new gas discovery The Black Sea Oil and Gas (BSOG) company discovered in the Black Sea between 10 and 20 billion cubic meters of natural gas and the production could start in 2019, according to CEO, Mark Beacom.

He said that the project would produce approximately 10% of the gas consumption of Romania for five years.

Havrilet said that Romania would become a gas exporter, when the production in the Black Sea would start.

“The total investment by now is 200 million US dollars. It is difficult to estimate the total amount before the start of production, because there could be discoveries that could come up afterwards. The total amount of investment could be, perhaps, 500 million US dollars”, the CEO added.

Havrilet said that the production in the first year there should be 1 billion cubic metres, to be inreased afterwards to 4 billion cubic metres a year.

He also said that the production could begin in 2019, but it depends on some actions that the government should take to settle the fiscal regime. Black Sea Oil & Gas SRL, wholly owned by Carlyle International Energy Partners, is a Romanian based independent oil and gas company, targeting exploration and development of conventional oil & gas resources, according to a press statement released by the company in November 2016.

A gas exporter

Chairman of Romania’s National Energy Regulatory Authority (ANRE) Niculae

“Production in the first year of operation should be 1 billion cubic metres, to be incremented afterward to 4 billion cubic metres against Romania’s 2107 consumption of 12 billion cubic metres a year and normal imports of between 500 and 600 million cubic metres a year. The first year’s production will virtually cancel out the need for natural gas imports, and, furthermore, Romania will have to secure conditions for gar exports for the investor to be able to recoup its investment costs,” added Havrilet.

Back on profit

Meanwhile, another company which is expected to start the production in the Black Sea, OMV Petrom, the biggest oil and gas group in Romania recorded a RON 1.04 billion (EUR 232 million) net


“The first year’s production will virtually cancel out the need for natural gas imports, and, what’s more, Romania will have to secure conditions for gar exports for the investor to be able to recoup its investment costs” – Niculae Havrilet, head of ANRE

profit in 2016, after posting EUR 152 million losses in 2015. The group’s Executive Board proposed a RON 0.015 dividend per share, which would result in a dividend payout ratio of over 80% of the net profit, the highest since the company’s privatization, in 2004. The total dividends amount to EUR 189 million, representing 55% of the free cash flow generated in 2016. OMV Petrom also announced that it has updated its long-term strategy and aims for regional expansion. The group’s operational results for 2016 continued the downtrend in recent years, due to the low oil prices. In the Upstream segment, the crude oil production went down by 4% and the natural gas production was also slightly lower compared to 2015. In Downstream, the total sales of refined products went down by 2% despite a 1% increase in retail sales. Gas sales to third parties went down 3%. However, the electricity sales increased by 10%. “In 2016, the market environment

remained volatile and challenging, which translated into a decrease of Clean CCS EBIT, offsetting the benefits of our continued cost discipline. Cost savings of around RON 500 million were achieved at Group level. In Upstream, we further reduced production costs, which more than compensated for the production decline impact, but could not fully offset the lower prices effect,” said Mariana Gheorghe, OMV Petrom CEO. OMV Petrom and ExxonMobil are also exploring the deepwater Neptun block, but they have not taken the investment decision yet.

News Penelope Mitroulia

12 32

MIGUEL ARIAS CANETE NEGOTIATES KEY PROJECTS WITH GREEK GOVERNMENT The transformation of Greece as an energy hub for the Eastern Mediterranean is now part of European energy policy, according to EU’s Energy Commissioner, Miguel Arias Canete, who visited Athens recently and delivered to the Greek government the message of the European Commission for full support through funding tools in order to promote energy projects.

Characteristically, Mr. Canete made clear in his meetings with prime minister Tsipras and energy minister Stathakis, that the EU will support the projects for turning Greece into a power and natural gas hub, through funding tools, as part of the European policy that includes the differentiation of supply sources and the gradual independence from coal. During the common press conference made by Mr. Canete and Mr. Stathakis, the commissioner underlined the importance of Greece’s geographic position, saying that “Greece is at the crossroads of three continents”, while pointing at the map. He also mentioned that “the European Commission wants to assist Greece in order to become a hub in electricity and natural gas”.

Key energy projects

The commissioner underscored the great energy projects that are being planned, because, as he said, through their completion the energy sources will be diversified, such as natural gas from Azerbaijan through TAP towards Italy and the Balkans and from there towards Central Europe, but also gas from the

Eastern Mediterranean towards Italy through the EastMed pipeline. Major energy projects already under way or in a mature state or during feasibility study stage are the following; – Interconnector Bulgaria-Greece (IGB). IGB is expected to connect the Greek natural gas network to the Bulgarian, starting from Komotini. Its length will be 182km, its diameter 32 inches and the initial capacity will be 3 bcm/year with an option of upgrading to 5 bcm through the use of an additional compressor station. The pipeline is expected to be ready in 2018 against a cost of 250 million euros. – Floating LNG terminal in Alexandroupoli. This project comprises of a floating terminal for the docking of LNG cargoes and gasification of natural gas, as well as an undersea and land pipeline. Alexandroupoli FSRU will also be able to connect and provide gas to other pipelines expected to come into play in the future, such as TAP. The IGB interconnector will have a length of 182km and an initial capacity of 3 bcm/year.


The natural gas will arrive at the floating unit through LNG ships, it will be transferred with brackets and it will be stored temporarily in the plant’s cryogenic storage units. After that, it will be gasified on-site and through a special arrangement (tower and flexible pipes) it will be transferred to the undersea pipeline, in order to follow a 24km route towards the area of Apalos, to the east of Alexandroupoli. Following that, it will be transferred north for 4km, towards the Amphitriti station, where it will be connected to the national natural gas grid. The floating unit will be permanently anchored in a stable position at a distance of 17,6km from the Alexandroupoli harbor and 10km from the coast of Makri. Alexandroupoli FSRU has the goal of providing a fourth point of entry for natural gas in Greece, with a capacity of 700.000 c.m. per hour or 6,1 bcm/year and a storage capacity of up to 170.000 c.m. of LNG. Its commercial operation is expected in 2019. – East Med pipeline. The pre-feasibility study has been conducted with positive results. According to the existing

timetable, its operation is expected to commence in 2021. The pipeline will be able to transfer gas from the new fields of the Eastern Mediterranean towards Greece and then through the national gas network and interconnections towards the rest of Europe. The pipeline will have a length of about 1.200km and it will comprise of various sections, one from the fields to Cyprus and then towards Crete and the Peloponnese. The land based part of the pipeline towards Hepirus will have a length of 480km. The project is expected to create 2.000 new jobs during its construction and its budget will be 6 billion euros. – TAP pipeline. The TAP pipeline will transfer gas from the Caspian region to Europe. It will connect to the TANAP pipeline at the Greek-Turkish border and will run through Northern Greece, Albania and the Adriatic Sea before ending at the shores of Northern Italy, where it will connect to the Italian gas network. Its construction commenced in 2016.

– Power interconnection of IsraelCyprus-Greece. This project, known as the Euro-Asia Interconnector, includes a 600 kV undersea cable for the interconnection of Israel, Cyprus and Greece. The cable will be able to transfer 2.000 MW and will have a length of about 1,518km. More specifically, it will include three interconnections • 329km between Israel-Cyprus • 879km between Cyprus-Crete • 310km between Crete and continental Greece The assumed cost for the Greek part is calculated at 800 million to 1 billion euros.

Oil & gas Penelope Mitroulia

13 34

ENERGEAN OIL & GAS TO DEVELOP TANIN & KARISH FIELDS Energean Oil & Gas CEO, Mathios Rigas, is in Israel for the final push in order for a large international funding group to participate in the company’s investment program.

The target is to acquire funding for the realization of a 1.2 billion dollar investment in the two Israeli natural gas fields that the company bought in August, 2016.

developing Israeli market, which is further strengthened by the decision of the authorities to shut down power stations using coal and replace them with ones that consume natural gas.

More specifically, they are the offshore fields Tanin and Karish, which are situated under deep waters inside the Israeli EEZ, at a distance of about 100km from the coast and they are estimated to contain about 2.4 trillion c.f. of gas.

The development method for Karish and Tanin fields

Energean Oil & Gas acquired the rights to developing these concessions from the Israeli Delek Group and the American Noble Energy for the sum of 148 million dollars. Energean Oil has taken upon itself the task of developing these two fields and distribute the natural gas exclusively to the Israeli market, while at the same time taking the risk of ensuring the supply to its customers from 2019-2020 onwards, when production will commence, according to the Field Development Plan. It should be noted that the company has already began consultations for the signing of gas contracts in the rapidly

In order to develop the two concessions, the company plans to use the FPSO (Floating, Production, Storage and Offloading) technology, which means that a floating unit will be anchored offshore and there the processing and separation of natural gas from oil and water will take place. The gas will then be transferred by pipeline to land and the industrial complex of Dor, while the oil will be loaded in ships and marketed. The total investment for developing the two fields exceeds 1.2 billion dollars. According to Mr. Rigas, Energean agreed to buy the rights to those particular concessions for 148 million dollars, after Rosneft bought 30% of the Zohr field in Egypt for 1.58 billion dollars from Eni.


At the same time, Energean plans 200 million dollars of investments in Greece within the next few years.

Based on this new data, Energean is proceeding with the redesign of the field development plan for Epsilon.

Simultaneously, Energean is preparing a seismic survey for the Ioannina concession, due to begin this spring.

Prinos and the Epsilon field

In 2016, for the first time since 2001, the production in Prinos exceeded 1 million barrels, while for the first time in the history of this concession, the Greek state will receive royalties of 400.000 euros.

The company has also made a deal with the Greek government for the alteration of the Katakolo offshore field rights, which have a 25 year duration, with the hope of drilling a well in 2018.

According to Greek law, the royalties will be used as capital for HHRM, the independent corporation that oversees Greek hydrocarbons.

Energean calculates that the field contains 35-40 million barrels, of which 10 million barrels are recoverable, while it awaits the certification of an independent reviewer.

In Prinos, Energean concluded successfully four drilling wells in 2016, thus tripling the daily oil production. Data acquired from the new wells suggest that Prinos contains estimated reserves of about 40 million barrels (versus a 30 million barrels assessment two years ago). It should be reminded that in 2007, when Energean took over the development of Prinos, the proven reserves in Prinos were just 2 million barrels. Since then, investments of 350 million dollars have been made, eleven successful drilling wells took place and more than 200 new jobs have been created. In total, the company now employs more than 460 people. Furthermore, the processing and interpretation from the seismic survey conducted in the summer of 2015 has led to an upgrading of the assessment for the Epsilon field, which also belongs to the Prinos concession and is now estimated to contain 15 million barrels.

Activity in Western Greece

Meanwhile, Energean is in talks with other companies in the region for cooperation in the exploration and production of hydrocarbons in Western Greece, where the company has acquired rights. Among them are some of the most well known names in the sector. Energean has been selected as concessionaire for the area of Aitoloakarnania and awaits the signing and ratification of the contract in order to begin its exploration program.

At the same time, Energean will submit in February 2017 the complete Field Development Plan and the environmental and social impact assessment. Last but not least, the company has signed a deal with the government of Montenegro for the acquisition of rights for two offshore concessions, while it prepares to drill in the land concession West Kom Ombo of Egypt at the beginning of 2017.

Electricity Emilia Damian

14 36

Energy liberalization in Romania This year will be the last in Romania with regulated electricity prices for household consumers.

Starting from 1 January 2018, the electricity market in Romania will be fully liberalized, so the competition between energy suppliers is expected to be fierce this year. The authorities recommend that consumers are careful when signing new contracts because the offers may include traps. “In 2017, the competition between suppliers will increase a lot. Now the competition is fierce, there are real fights between providers. The margins are very small, so that all suppliers will struggle to increase the volume of electricity by attracting new customers”, said Ion Lungu, president of the Association of Electricity Suppliers in Romania (AFEER). According to him, consumers are becoming more sophisticated, with increasing awareness and growing their claims. “The prices will be quite similar to each other and my feeling is that it will not be volatile. Consumers will not look only at prices and providers should offer something else, quality service and kindness. You have to build a

relationship of trust with the customer. Business ethics will be very important”, Lungu also said.

The traditional supllier

Households in Romania are not accustomed to the idea of liberalization, a concept that has been implemented in other European countries for 10-15 years. Romanians have a traditional supplier in terms of geography (Electrica, CEZ, Enel, E.ON) and find it a novelty that they receive offers from other companies. Theoretically, every Romanian has been free to change their electricity supplier since 2007, when energy distribution activity was separated from the supply, together with the implementation of a European directive. Basically, the consumers were not too keen to change the traditional energy supplier, because no one offered a better price than the regulated one.

Timetable for liberalization

In 2012, the Romanian Government has agreed with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank a timetable for


“Although some deals are attractive at first glance, it is better to make sure that they have favorable terms for the duration of the contract and comply with the relevant legislation” – Niculae Havrilet, head of the Energy Regulatory Authority

full liberalization of the market, which will happen on 31 December 2017.

the chairman of the Energy Regulatory Authority (ANRE), Niculae Havrilet.

With the close of this period, the traders have very good price offers, some of them smaller than the current regulated price. Meanwhile, more companies have entered the market and began to attract customers with low prices.

He pointed out that although some deals are attractive at first glance, it is better to make sure that they have favorable terms for the duration of the contract and comply with the relevant legislation. It’s about possible deals that do not contain information about the value of green certificates and cogeneration contribution. And any promise of non-payment of such charges coming from any provider should not be taken into consideration.

Beware of the offers

Some offers even include periods in which the company promises zero invoice. Consumers should know, however, that such thing is not possible. In addition to energy price, the bill containes the contribution for the green certificates and the contribution for cogeneration, which all the consumers have to pay according to the low. So there is no zero invoice. Such deals are illegal because the company is obliged to inform consumers about these things. On the other hand, promotions are for limited periods of time and no supplier explains which will be the price after that period of time. These problems were raised also by

Havrilet advised the consumers who choose to sign a contract with a new supplier to be aware of the price, the duration of the contract, the terms and conditions of payment, the contractual clauses on the rights and obligations, including the terms of penalty. Other clauses that require attention are the conditions under which the parties may renegotiate the terms of the contract, the conditions for terminating the contract and terms which may have effects after termination.

Renewables Ada Gavrilescu

15 38

Romanians don’t use solar energy for heating Only 1 percent of Romanians use solar energy to heat their homes, despite the fact that, at the same time, almost half of the people living in Romania (49 percent) believe it would be desirable to use environmentally friendly solar energy for space heating.


A study on living in Europe shows that the use of solar energy as main source of heating the house is in the preferences of 49 percent of the Romanians, who consider that thus they would contribute to the protection of the environment. The study has been conducted at the end of the last year in eight European countries (UK, Italy, the Czech Republic, Romania, Sweden, Turkey and Hungary) and it was commissioned by the German utilities group E.ON and Kantar EMNID. The possible change to a system of heating with solar energy, indicated as ideal, would mean radical transformation in a country as Romania where, according to the above-mentioned study, the majority of the houses are heated with gas units or they are dependent on the central heating system. According to the findings of the study, most Romanian homes are heated via gas micro plants or are dependent on the local heating systems. Only 1 percent of those who participated in the survey showed that, at present, they use solar energy to heat the house and only 1 percent mentioned that they developed systems based on geothermal power.

Solar energy, also preferred in other European countries Elsewhere in Europe, people from other countries also prefer solar energy for home heating. Solar energy is indicated as ideal variant for heating the houses by the interviewed ones from

other countries, the Italians and the Hungarians being the most favoured to this resource. 61 percent of all Hungarians and 60 percent of Italians would opt for a solar-heated home, saying that they would choose without any reserve such a system of heating. At the same time, the people least interested in heat from the sun are the British. While only 38 percent of the interviewed ones say that they would prefer to heat their homes with solar energy, other 36% would rather have their homes heated on the basis of natural gas.

Romania is among the European Union members that have already reached the 20 percent level required to meet their national Europe 2020 targets for renewable energy out of gross energy consumption

Wood, still used for heating in many countries Wood continues to be much used as fuel in many European countries, especially in central and eastern Europe. Thus, Hungary, where almost a third of the citizens (31 percent) use wood for heating, is followed by the Czech Republic, with 20 percent of its population using wood for their homes heating, and by Romania, where 19 percent of the people have their homes heated on the basis of wood. 10 percent of the people in Romania use electrical devices such as electric radiators / heaters for heating. However, the share of users in Romania who use this type of heating systems is smaller than in the UK (18 percent), but much bigger than in Italy, where only 1 percent of the population use electrical heating sources.

Romania, in line with European targets On the other hand, Romania is among the European Union members that have already reached the 20 percent level required to meet their national Europe 2020 targets for renewable energy out of gross energy consumption. The 24.9 percent Romania registered in 2014 also puts the country almost ten percentage points over the EU average of 16 percent.

Energy production Emilia Damian

16 40

Romania, still reliant on coal Coal will remain the foundation of the national energy mix, along with nuclear power, said the new Romanian Energy Minister.

Coal is and will still be the most important energy source for the Romanian energy production, the new Energy Minister, Toma Petcu, said. Nuclear power is an important issue too, but there is also need to increase the country’s hydropower potential and a strategy for renewable energy. “The basis of the energy mix will still be coal energy production through cogeneration. Also an important role will be played by nuclear energy long term”, Petcu added. He also mentioned as another target the increasing of hydropower potential, with focus on hydropower plants bigger than 10 MW, while small hydropower plants have less efficiency and big environmental issues. “Regarding biomass, the government has a program to plant 500,000 hectares of energetic plants”, the minister also said.

Coal output down

The net coal output of Romania in 2016 totaled 4.217 million toe, down by

10.1 pct (475,700 toe) against 2015, according to the data released by the National Institute of Statistics (INS). In 2016, Romania imported 521,200 toe net coal, 33,200 toe (6 pct) less as compared to the imports of 2015. According to the Energy Strategy project, published on the relevant ministry’s website, Romania has 12.6 billion tonnes total reserves of brown coal, geographically gathered in the southern Oltenia Mining Basin. The deposits in operation total 986 million tonnes. The pit coal reserves concentrated in the southwestern basin of Valea Jiului amount to 2.2 billion tonnes, of which 592 million tonnes are in operational parameters.

Coal stocks for winter

Romania’s coal stocks for the winter were insufficient, the Energy Minister said in January, when consumption was at very high levels due to the bad weather. “To establish how the situation escalated


to an all-time low in terms of lack of coal stocks, we ordered the Government control body to check how the two energy producers that use coal and the former ministry of Energy prepared for the winter period. In the next period we will develop very clear procedures and established rules that tell us how

“The basis of the energy mix will still be coal energy production through cogeneration. Also an important role will be played by nuclear energy in the long term” – Toma Petcu, the Minister of Energy

to proceed from this unfortunate experience and from the historic high in consumption of electricity and gas. Such procedures were not followed during the previous government,” said Petcu. The Minister also presented the stocks of coal of the Energy Complex of Oltenia (CEO) and Hunedoara (CEH). CEO Oltenia has a stock of coal of 357,000 tons at a daily consumption on hourly peak of 80,000 tons, while CEH Hunedoara stock is of 30,000 tons of coal at a rate of consumption of 6,100 tonnes per day, which would last for just four days and so it is needed to ensure the proper functioning of the two companies, according to the minister of Energy. In a press release, CEO stated that existing stocks in power plants and mine pits and daily deliveries performed from pits to power plants allow for the smooth functioning of the energy units available. In a posting on Facebook, former Minister of Energy Victor Grigorescu said that the stocks needed for winter in the energy system exist and the Grindeanu

government was notified of this. “It is naive to believe that these stocks disappear overnight or that they can be achieved by simply ordering it. Stocks for the winter started to be accumulated since autumn,” wrote Grigorescu. “The discussion related to the stocks existence is a political issue and not a professional one,” wrote Grigorescu, who insisted that “burden legacy” is only a matter of political speech.

Electricity Emilia Damian

17 42

HIGH ENERGY PRICES IN ROMANIA Romania had in January a record price for electricity, because of the high consumption due to cold weather.

Prices on the spot market of the OPCOM energy exchange hit record highs of over 600 lei per MWh in January, twice the prices in the early days of the year and three times greater than in the same period of the last year. The Energy Regulatory Authority (ANRE) has started an investigation on two contracts for electricity concluded on the OPCOM market, having suspicions of law violation and has requested the support of the Competition Council, ANRE representatives said in February. “Suspicious transactions have been reported, ANRE is having talks with the Competition Council to investigate these transactions. The ANRE head has contacted the Competition Council representatives so that a common investigation is conducted on these contracts,” ANRE officials said.

suspicious transactions, we will certainly start the control and investigation,” ANRE representatives said.

Highest prices in Europe

The officials have not mentioned the specific transactions and the companies under investigation. “It is an ongoing investigation and we cannot deliver names. It’s about transactions concluded on the PZU (spot) market,” the officials added. “Right now there are only suspicions. We have no confirmation, the energy exchange is a free market where demand and supply meet, and therefore we need support from the Competition Council.” The prices on the sport market (PZU) of the energy exchange OPCOM reached record highs of over RON 600 per MWh, twice as high than in early January.

ANRE has started the investigation following a notification reading that the contracts were concluded at a higher price than normal.

On January 15 and 23, 2017, Romania registered the highest energy price in Europe, up to EUR 74.92 per MWh and EUR 96.52 MWh respectively, according to data delivered by OPCOM.

“If operator OPCOM will notify us on other

The highest price recorded in Europe


this month was in Hungary, of EUR 300 per MWh. Data posted on the OPCOM website suggest the high price was not caused by the electricity traffic, as the OPCOM futures traded in January were 6.8 TWh, higher that the entire country’s consumption estimated at 6TWh in January. In addition, on the sport market, another quantity of 3.4 TWh is traded. On the futures market, the price in January was of RON 168 per MWh.

Who benefits?

Hidroelectrica is the most important energy producer in Romania. Hidroelectrica’s energy sales on the power exchange were at the market price and the company did not abuse its dominant position since it acted on the market at the request of the national energy dispatch center, in full compliance with the law, chairman of the Hidroelectrica board of directors Ovidiu Agliceru said. This reaction follows the initiation by the National Energy Regulatory

Authority and the Competition Council of an investigation into the power exchange, over suspicions that two companies have manipulated the market by abusing their dominant position. The allegations revolve around the country’s largest energy producers Hidroelectrica and the Oltenia Energy Complex, which have sold in this period energy for very high prices.

“We sold energy only at the market price and under competitive conditions. It was only on the competitive market and under competitive and transparent conditions. We sold all available power on the Day-ahead market under bilateral contracts and of course there have been overruns on the balancing market, but that doesn’t depend on us. So we sold all available power,” Agliceru explained.

“These are the market prices, we didn’t build them. That’s how they formed by the law of demand and supply” – Ovidiu Agliceru, head of Hidroelectrica

Asked about his opinion of the current power prices that are twice higher than at the beginning of the year, he replied: “These are the market prices, we didn’t build them. That’s how they formed by the law of demand and supply. When the price of hydropower was 1 leu, no one inquired about that. Prices naturally increased now, when demand for energy is much higher than the supply. It’s a market mechanism. It’s the market that determined the evolution of the prices.”

Oil & gas

18 44

NATURAL GAS AGAINST ENERGY & SOCIAL POVERTY Natural gas is the primary “weapon” against energy and social poverty, since it is the bridge fuel towards a low-carbon era and the use of alternative sources of energy.


It is well known that during the climate change summit in Paris, states agreed to keep the rise of average global temperature well beneath 2°C compared to pre-industrial times and continue efforts towards a rise of less than 1.5°C. European states have submitted comprehensive national climate plans in order to reduce their emissions and according to the deal, governments need to update their contributions every 5 years towards more ambitious targets.

Natural gas is the primary means of achieving these goals It has zero emissions of microparticles PM and it emits 25% less CO2 than gasoline (when used in vehicles), as well as 35% less than oil. Thus, natural gas contributes significantly to limiting the greenhouse effect, since CO2 is one of the primary gases that create it. At the same time, the use of gas contributes to the European goal for energy efficiency and it provides an answer to the EU’s directives for reducing dependence on oil. Aside from its environmental advantages, natural gas also has economic ones. In a period when the limiting of energy expenditure is crucial, gas is becoming the basic factor of reducing cost in businesses, public buildings and residential housing. Depending on its use, the savings may reach 70%.

Natural gas for public buildings and businesses According to studies, the application

of energy saving measures may limit annual energy costs by 25% and annual CO2 emissions by 450.000 tons. Towards this goal, local authorities are advancing the use of natural gas. In this way, more public buildings out of a total number of 200.000 are connected to the natural gas grid. A recent example is the connection of public buildings in the Farsala municipality to the gas network, while in large Greek cities such as Athens and Thessaloniki, most of the buildings housing public authorities and organizations use natural gas for many years now in order to cover their needs.

Natural gas is the cleanest fuel Natural gas is the cleanest fuel, with lower emissions compared to all the other conventional fuels; Its burning emits less CO2, as to contribute to the lessening of the greenhouse effect through the replacement of other fuels. It does not contain sulfur compounds that endanger the environment and contribute to acid rain. Its burning is clean and does not emit soot and microparticles, thus reducing air pollution. Comparison between CO2 emissions from natural gas and other fuels;

Natural gas is being used extensively in business spaces (offices, shops), not only to cover energy needs, but also transportation needs. Courier services, logistics companies, industries, hotels etc. are using natural gas vehicles, lowering their fuel costs by up to 66% and enjoying autonomy because of the ever increasing Fisikon supply network in major cities.

Natural gas at home

The residential use of natural gas ensures a reduction of at least 50% to the cost of heating, hot water and cooking. The use of gas for residential heating (with water heaters, etc) reduces heating bills by 40% and the returns reach 110%. For hot water, fast boilers are used, or it can be done through a wall-fitted boiler as soon as the faucet runs. The same appliance is used for radiators. In this way, savings of up to 40% are made possible (compared to an oil boiler) and 60% compared to an electric boiler. DEPA, a protagonist all these years in the natural gas market, achieved through significant investment in infrastructure projects, international strategic agreements, as well as tough negotiations for reducing the price of gas supplies (which was transferred to consumers), to upgrade the gas market and make the “green” fuel available to all consumer segments, to a large part of the country and to remote regions.

Energy policy Andrei Covatariu*

19 46

ROMANIAN OIL MARKET OVERVIEW The Energy Ministry published on December 19, 2016 the Romanian Energy Strategy 2016-2030, with an Outlook to 2050, accompanied by the methodological annex of the quantitative modelling.

The document is the result of an assiduous process that started in late 2015 with a thorough update of the diagnosis of the national energy sector, followed by a complex qualitative process of analysis that involved more than 300 national top energy experts, and a complex numerical modelling, done by a reputed international consortium – Ernst & Young and E3Modelling (Greece).

six months from its start – including a renewed 45-day period of public debate.

The process of elaboration was of unprecedented openness and transparency, at every stage. The draft of the final document was published for public consultation on November 15, 2016. A detailed discussion of content and form, from the viewpoint of the numerous observations brought up during the public consultation is given in the present monitor’s op-ed and will be unfolded over several issues.

Oil market overview: Q4 2016

As per European legislation, the strategy document in its current form must undergo a procedure of strategic environmental analysis (SEA), under the authority of the Environment Ministry, procedure which will likely take about

The SEA results will thereafter become an integral part of the national energy strategy. At that point, the Government will be able to act in order to turn the final form of the strategy into legislation, either by passing a Governmental Decision, or by submitting it to the Parliament for debate and enactment. The Brent Crude Oil average price increased from $46.2 in September to $49.7 in October 2016. Although OPEC members gathered again at the end of October for new talks on production cuts, pundits were still skeptic about the ability of the group to reach an agreement. Their main argument: OPEC’s new record output in October – 33.54 million barrels per day (mb/d) – along with Iran’s plans to avoid even a production freeze. In addition, data regarding a stock of more than 585,000 barrels (bbl) at the Cushing storage hub and delivery point (Oklahoma) maintained a downward price pressure.


Meanwhile, Russia maintained a record output, a trend that conforms to the country’s two-year plan for 20172018. Although the Russian authorities agreed to cooperate with OPEC to cut production, a draft of the federal budget shows that the country’s expected output is 0.7% higher in 2017 than 2016, and 0.9% higher in 2018, respectively. On the other hand, the World Bank raised the 2017 crude oil price forecast by $2/ bbl, reaching $55/bbl, a forecast that takes into consideration the agreement with OPEC. In Nigeria, although the security situation is clearly improving, the crisis caused by the attacks on oil pipelines is far from over. Up to 1 mb/d of oil output was cut in the past months, out of the usual production of 2.2 mb/d, causing a hard economic recession. At the end of November 2016, OPEC members agreed, against all odds, to freeze output. The settlement includes an overall cut of about 1.2 mb/d, which breaks down as follows: 486,000 b/d for Saudi Arabia, 210,000 b/d for Iraq, 139,000 b/d for UAE, 131,000 b/d for Kuwait, 95,000 for Venezuela, 78,000 b/d for Angola, 50,000 b/d for Algeria, while Ecuador, Gabon and Qatar together are to cut around 65,000 b/d. The measure had the oil price increase immediately, surpassing the psychological threshold of $50/bbl.

Moreover, the OPEC and non-OPEC members reached an agreement on December 10, a first of its kind in the last 16 years, consisting in a joint production cut of about 558,000 b/d, out of which Russia is to bear about half. However, both OPEC and nonOPEC members have a history of not respecting their agreements. Thus, last time Russia committed to coordinate its production level with OPEC’s, 15 years ago, it was short lived. Indeed, Russia’s exports in November were the highest after 1990 – 11.21 mb/d. Many industry experts consider that cheating is likely to happen in 2017, yet others, including Faith Birol, IEA Executive Director, expects some good effects of the OPEC deal. Actually, IEA stated multiple times that the oil prices cannot increase unless a common understanding is reached. In December 2016, a survey among major banks done by the Wall Street Journal concluded that the average 2017 oil price will converge to $56/bbl for WTI and $58/bbl for Brent, while the EIA (the US Energy Information Agency) 2017 forecast is $50/bbl for WTI and $51/bbl for Brent. Meanwhile, the real world has already exceeded expectations: the Brent barrel reached $56 after the December 10 deal and, after some vacillation, raised to $57 at the end of the month. The question now is, how stable will this price level prove to be. Will it grow

further? According to IEA’s projection in the latest World Energy Outlook, the price ought to increase toward $80/bbl in order for output and demand to balance, and they deem this to occur by 2020. On the supply side, the main factor are the American shale gas producers. They have proved to be more resilient than expected through the price slump after 2014. How quickly and significantly will they now be able to ramp up production? According to Goldman Sachs, a price of more than $55/bbl will bring an additional 0.8 mb/d in shale output, in comparison with the scenario in which the oil prices revoled around $45/ bbl – largely characteristic of the past two years. Any increase above such a level may nullify the effects of the recent production cut. Thus, shale oil production seems to have become the new regulating factor in the oil industry: it all depends on the price level at which a base level of shale production can be resumed. With the current oil prices, the next few months will put to test the validity of this view, as shale output is expected to come back on in a negative feedback, exerting a downward price pressure.

Andrei Covatariu is EPG Affiliated Expert.

Geopolitics of energy Dr Georgios Chrysochou and Dr Dimitrios Dalaklis*

20 48

Geography and Transport of Energy Resources The current analysis is discussing the paramount role of the Mediterranean Sea within the contemporary global maritime transport system. Additionally, it provides an evaluation of the geopolitical importance of its Southeastern part in relation to Europe’s energy supply routes. Through the specific region and of course via the Aegean Sea, very large quantities of oil that start their journey in the Black Sea (Russia) and/or the Persian Gulf are delivered to a rather extended number of European countries.

In the light of energy rivalries and possible forms of cooperation among the respective regional and international actors, relevant issues of maritime delimitation among the neighbouring countries acquire an extremely important security dimension. The analysis puts forward the argument that resolving these maritime delimitation issues of the area under discussion, by keeping in line with the requirements of international law and especially the United Nations Convention on the Law Of the Sea (UNCLOS), will positively impact on the freedom of navigation and associated maritime transport schemes. Overcoming the obstacles and settling these issues will also render Europe capable of utilising the energy reserves available within the specific region for the purpose of diversifying its (energy) supply sources. In this context, Greece, by taking advantage of its geographic location and its shipping capacity, has the potential to transform into an extremely important hub for Europe’s trade and energy supply. The key characteristic of the contemporary world is the

interconnectedness among societies and people across the national boundaries of nation-states. This complex process is called globalization and is obviously a phenomenon with multi-level influences (P. Siousiouras & D. Dalaklis, 2009). With oceans covering almost three-quarters of the earth’s surface and with well over 80% of all international trade transported by sea (UNCTAD, 2016), maritime transport should be considered as the backbone of globalization and extremely vital for all “just-in-time economies”, such as those of Europe and the United States (D. Dalaklis, 2012). Today, shipping is by far the most international of the world’s industries, serving vast quantities of global trade. Each and every day, ships of different size and capabilities carry huge quantities of cargo cost effectively, cleanly and safely. It is a rather self-explanatory fact that the configuration of the Earth facilitates maritime transport endeavors, since three quarters of the planet’s surface is covered by sea or lakes. It also necessary to consider that with the exception of the North and South Poles, the transport of passengers and goods by sea-going vessels is possible to and from any part of the world. This fact by itself


constitutes a comparative advantage for sea transport over air or land transport. In any case, due to the massive availability of commercial ships, transports needs of a society that is subject to increased levels of consumption in goods and raw materials is made technically and financially possible. On the other hand, pending for a very long time maritime delimitation issues between adjacent states can be a source of on-going tensions and at the same time pose serious problems to the freedom of navigation, hampering maritime transport and the respective energy supply routes. The European Union (EU) member-states, having recognized the need to work harder and closer in the domain of maritime affairs, have agreed upon the contents of a uniform maritime strategy, although interests might be conflicting and their performance in the specific financial sector varying. Consequently, in June 2014, the European Council adopted a Maritime Security Strategy (EMSS) intended at providing a common framework for coherent national policies (European Commission, (a), 2014). Maritime transport is a very important sector of the EU’s economy: the 70.000 km of coastline and the extended number of maritime states being its members (European Commission, (b), 2016) provide a very strong argument that accessible and secure waterways are crucial for Europe’s future. Taking all the above mentioned into account, the EU’s maritime security

strategy is clearly seen to be linked to the freedom of navigation and maritime transport “oriented”; this high level document is especially concerned with uninterrupted/free maritime energy supply routes, the latter being threatened by maritime delimitation issues among adjacent states. A typical situation of such kind of threats, along with the related challenges and opportunities regarding both maritime security and international trade is the case of Eastern Mediterranean Sea, will provide the epicenter of analysis.

The geopolitical and geoeconomic importance of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea The Mediterranean Sea (Med) is amongst the world’s busiest waterways. 15 per cent of global shipping activity by number of calls and 10 per cent by vessel deadweight tons (DWT) were noted in the wider region per year the last decade. The same decade, 13.000 merchant ships made 252.000 calls at Mediterranean ports, totaling 3.8bn DWT on average per year. The fact is that every year the equivalent number is increased, no matter of the on-going global economic recession. Statistics also clearly indicate that at the same time around 10.000 (mainly large) vessels transited the area under discussion en-route between non-Mediterranean ports. Merchant vessels operating within and through the Mediterranean are getting larger and carrying more trade in larger parcels. Vessels transiting the Mediterranean Sea average around 50.000 DWT and

are (again, on average) over three times larger than those operating within the Mediterranean (GRID ARENDAL, 2013, REMPEC, 2008). The Med’s geoeconomic significance is made clearly obvious by the fact that it is a common area for three different continents: Europe, Asia and Africa. Furthermore, it is necessary to note that there are two very important sea straits in its eastern basin: The first one is the Dardanelles, through which the Mediterranean Sea (and the Aegean Sea) communicate with the Black Sea and the various countries whose coastlines are located on the wider region of Black Sea; of course, for the latter the access to the open (warm) seas is secured. The second gate of interest is the Suez Canal. Subsequently, the following two basic axes with special importance for maritime transports are formed: a) Atlantic Ocean-Mediterranean Sea-Red Sea and b) Black Sea-Aegean Sea-Mediterranean Sea-Indian Ocean. As a result, the Mediterranean is often characterized as an extremely important element of the contemporary maritime transport system and, above all, as the most important link of the transport chain between Asia and Europe (Dalaklis et all, 2014). Both the continental land mass of Southeastern Europe and its surrounding sea areas -in particular the broader area of the Eastern Med region- constitute a subset of Eurasia of a great geopolitical importance. The geo-economic importance of the Med Sea, as a whole, is further enhanced by the fact that this is the common place of three continents:


Europe, Asia and Africa. It should be noted that both the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf are geopolitically placed among the same broader periphery, while Turkey and Egypt (Suez) can be treated as land and sea bridges at the same time between Europe and the Middle East / Southwest Asia (G.P. Vlahou and E. Nikolaidi, 2002). Historically, the Med Sea region has been a cultural synthesis zone as well as a confrontation and conflict area, mainly due to the historical and cultural legacies of its inhabitants (i.e.

The Mediterranean Sea is amongst the world’s busiest waterways. 15 per cent of global shipping activity by number of calls and 10 per cent by vessel deadweight tons (DWT) were noted in the wider region per year the last decade

crossover field of different cultures such as European, Muslim, Arab ones). The fact that part of these diversities still meet today on the southern side of the Med, is explained, among others, by the geopolitical and geostrategic importance of the region under discussion, especially its South-eastern part. Thus, it is more than evident that the role of the broader area of the Eastern Med Sea is paramount in the evolution of history . It should be noted that the land mass of the Balkans’ peninsula and the various countries along the Med coastline constitute basic targets of any attempt coming from the classical continental powers that concerns access to warm seas (Η. J. Mackinder, 1904, C. Flint, 2006, G. Chaliand & J. P. Rageau, 1985 and A. T. Mahan, 1890). It is also evident that with the collapse of the socialist block and the advent of globalization, the role of the Eastern Med in international politics has become more multidimensional. Thus, besides the geostrategic dimension of the Eastern Med -manifested in the backstage or the aftermath of intrastate conflicts, both during the overthrow of supposedly everlasting ruling regimes in Libya and in Egypt or in the unceasing relentless civil war in Syria- the wider region of the Eastern Med has additionally acquired an upgraded role in the domain of “energy geopolitics”. This is taking place due to both the ongoing pipelines’ confrontation, which will be in the epicenter of Southeastern Europe’s politics for the years to come since it enables many geopolitical complexities with wide

impact (I. Desipris, 2011), and the recently discovered deposits of energy resources available in its sea-bed.

Maritime Transport in Greece and the link to Europe’s energy supply Greece is a maritime nation by tradition, as shipping is arguably the oldest form of occupation of the Greeks and has been a key element of the country’s economic activity since ancient times. There are various explanations for this phenomenon. To begin with, the mountainous landscape of the mainland and the rather limited available farming area has enforced many people to look towards a different direction in order to cover their necessity of work/ occupation. Furthermore, the numerous islands of Greece and the extended coastline provide another incentive for people to deal with the reaches of the sea: shipping and trade. The Hellenic Republic enjoys a very privileged geographical position. It is situated on the crossroads of various major sea lanes in the eastern Mediterranean and with extremely large proximity to two other rather overpopulated continents: Asia and Africa. The Suez Canal and the Dardanelles Straits are two extremely important choke points for maritime traffic. They both gather a significant high number of ships, with the technical construction between Suez and Port Said steadily exceeding the number of 20.000 crossings per year. For example, in 2016, a total of 34.000 vessels approximately passed through


the canal while the equivalent net ton surpassed 1.900.000 thousand tons (Suez Canal Traffic Statistics, 2016). Although the current financial crisis and piracy activities in the Gulf of Aden had negatively impact the number of Suez crossings, since the second quarter of 2013 associated numbers are going up: EU’s naval operation ATALANTA has clearly suppressed the Somali pirates’ actions (D. Dalaklis, 2013). In any case, a considerable proportion of the world’s energy resources -mainly oil and natural gas passes through the Mediterranean and also through the Aegean Sea. It is not only those originating in the Persian Gulf; from this particular maritime corridor -either solely by oil tankers or through a combination of pipelines and medium or large tankers- that the entire trade of energy resources coming from the Caspian Sea and Russia is being transported (D. Dalaklis, P. Siousiouras & N. Nikitakos, 2009). Apart from a very favorable geographic position, Greece has the largest merchant fleet in the world, accounting for more than 16% of the world’s total deadweight tonnage (dwt) according to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD, 2016). Shipping accounts for more than 8% of Greece’s GDP and employs approximately 290.000 people (an important portion of the total workforce). Earnings from shipping amounted to €35.4 billion in 2014. A European Community Ship-owners’ Association (ESCA) report for the years 2012-2013 emphasized that

the Greek flag was the sixth-mostused internationally for shipping, while it ranked second in the EU; the same ECSA report stressed the fact that even at the period of the worst economic recession in Greece (2012) and despite the dire global economic situation, foreign exchange earnings from shipping amounted to 6,86% of the Hellenic GDP (ESCA, 2013). This is the reason why every elected Greek government since then has openly declared its strategic vision to transform the country into a major hub for Europe’s commerce. It is true that Greece retains one of the leading places in international shipping. The reciprocal relations between profits from maritime activities and national economy constitute merchant vessels as a very important factor for development. On the other hand, there many important steps towards the transformation of the country into a vital “epicenter” of European commerce and trade, with the expansion of the current infrastructure in various ports standing out. Unfortunately, the lack of financing is the main obstacle for improving the quality of services. Nevertheless, the aspiration of Greece being a major European commercial hub matches very well with the recognition of Greece as a major energy hub for Europe. In more detail, in 2013, the government of Azerbaijan decided the selection of TransAdriatic Pipeline (TAP), as a continuation of the TANAP pipeline (Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline), with the latter to run through the territory of Turkey.

This project prevailed over other proposed projects, i.e, Nabucco and Italy-Turkey -Greece Interconnector which had the same aim: to transport the natural gas of the deposit of the Shah Deniz II field in the Caspian Sea. The gas flow is estimated by optimistic forecasts to be starting in 201718. Selecting TAP, has proved to be beneficial for Greece. As soon as the necessary additional quantities of natural gas from Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Northern Iraq to Europe will be allocated both by TAP and other additional projects, then they will certainly be able to serve proportionately to Europe’s energy supply. The final result will be a “South European Gas Corridor” of a medium capacity of at least 40 billion cubical meters (bcm) (I. Maniatis, 2011). Therefore, Athens being also participating in the project of the Russian pipeline “South Stream”, is aiming to upgrade its role in the wider gas transportation to the European market, rendering itself and the neighbouring state of Turkey strong future transit nodes (hubs). In addition, a rough figure of fifty (50) Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) docking stations –with a total capacity of 200 billion cubical feet (bcf)- have been manufactured in Europe during the last couple of years; Greek ship-owners could be the protagonists in this new lucrative business (A. Foskolos, 2015).

The energy deposits of Eastern Med, their impact to the international security According to the data of a United States Geological Service (USGS) study, in the

The Cypriot and Israeli energy deposits in Southeastern Med. Source: International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS)


bed of the Levantine Basin, (which is environed by Cyprus, Israel, the strip of Gaza, Lebanon and Syria) there are great deposits of natural gas and petroleum. Companies which serve AmericanIsraeli and Norwegian interests have already been granted the permission to research the sea area between Cyprus and Israel and they have announced their discovery of large natural gas deposits. Political events and decisions in the wider region are decisively influenced by the discoveries of new energy resources of carbohydrates in the sea bed between Cyprus and Israel, as well as in the area of the triangle formulated by the (Greek inhabited) islands of Crete–Kastellorizo–Cyprus. The greatest deposits of natural gas seem to exist in the common boundaries of the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) between Cyprus and Israel, promising an alternative (and more stable) corridor for the energy sufficiency of the EU in the latter’s effort to reduce the dependency from Russia. However, not all the EEZs between the neighboring states have yet been determined (except for the zones between Cyprus and Israel, Cyprus and Egypt, Cyprus and Lebanon), even though intensive consultations among the interested parts have commenced for the delimitation of these zones. It should be noted that there are major disputes regarding the issues of the territorial waters and the EEZs (i.e. between Lebanon and Israel, or Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza). Additionally, the existence of a significant amount of natural gas deposits is possible not only

in the areas between Cyprus and Israel and between Cyprus and Egypt, but also in the sea area west of Cyprus, which lies between the islands of Cyprus and Crete as well as in the Ionian Sea and Southern Cretan Sea. For this reason, the Greek government is in the process of an ongoing licensing-round with several interested energy companies (Hellenic Ministry of Environment and Energy, 2012). Nevertheless, the discovered oil and natural gas deposits of the Eastern Med and the widespread belief that the surrounding area is very rich in energy resources, cause since 2008 frictions among the key-players, which combined with the recent uprisings against the authoritarian regimes in the Middle East and North Africa, delineate the creation of a confrontational situation of pulsated intensity over time. That situation, results both in the deterioration of the internal security of the involved countries and in the emergence of new threats and risks for the specific region and its periphery since: • firstly, it threats the stability of the Arab world as a whole, • secondly, it affects negatively the cooperative relationship between the countries involved in the uprisings, • thirdly, it creates conditions for new massive flows of migrants and refugees to the countries of Europe, • fourthly, it jeopardizes the energy security of the western world, • finally, it increases the price of energy resources, so that the same recovery of the global economy is at stake.

Cyprus, taking the advantage of the aforementioned geopolitical circumstances, came in 2010 in collaboration with Israel by achieving an agreement on a common exploitation of the adjacent energy deposits ‘Leviathan’ and ‘Venus’ (which lie within Block 12 of Cypriot surveys), of the ‘Levantine’ basin, considering them a unified area of common interest for the two states (see figure above). At the same time, Cyprus legitimated internationally this cooperation by signing an agreement on the delimitation of the EEZ with Israel (G. Chrysochou & D. Dalaklis, 2012). In the aftermath of that agreement, there is a diffusive belief that Israel has seriously considered Greece and Cyprus as a transfer node towards Europe of the gas (the so called ‘East Med Pipeline’) that will be found in its EEZ. That may stand true both because Israel has estimated that the construction of relevant infrastructures could possibly receive financing from Europe and because the alternative route (via Turkey) seems for the moment not to be feasible, on the grounds that Tel-Aviv regards (according to what has been recorded so far) its relatively recent crisis in its relationships with Ankara as not something temporary. On the other hand, of course, the option of transferring the Cypriot-Israeli gas to the West via pipeline linked to the Arab Gas Pipeline and through the projection to Turkey seems difficult for the time being because of the increased pipeline security issues due


to the volatility in the specific region. Needless to mention, that the option of the cheapest solution, namely the construction of a pipeline from Cyprus to Turkey and then to Western and Central Europe is politically disputed, at least for the near future, because of the “Cyprus Question” (DefenceGreece. com, 2013). The perspective of the above project was confirmed by the President of the European Commission during the proceedings of the Council of 22 May 2013, in the general context of determining the future energy priorities of the EU. The energy dependence of the EU by countries belonging to the Arab-Muslim world, which are in a highly sensitive political and geostrategic transition, but also by countries like Russia, which demonstrate a high level of geostrategic competition against the dipole ‘Great Britain-USA’, forces the Western world, and particularly the EU, to pay attention to the promising hydrocarbon reserves of Cyprus Republic, Israel and Greece. In any case, Israel has not yet finally decided how to exploit its own deposits, thus what quantities will export to Europe and how will do this – either

by Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) or via pipeline. The type and depth of strategic relationship that Israel will develop with Cyprus, Greece as well as the EU will largely depend on this decision (Th. Dokos, 2012). However, it is important to note that there are many interested parts meeting in the region, apart from Cyprus, Greece, Turkey and Israel. Except the classical geopolitical pair of USA and Russia, the factor of the EU should also be taken under serious consideration. In addition, the Southeastern Med energy deposits implicate, except the aforementioned countries, Lebanon but also Egypt, Syria, NATO, China, UK as well as Asian, Middle Eastern and African natural gas producing countries. They also implicate the world’s most important energy companies, both for their aspirations for a piece of the action but also for the imposed threat of the hydrocarbons deposits to their planned projects. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, it is too early to speak with absolute optimism for a further development of the other energy deposits of the wider region, since a series of interstate

agreements concerning the delimitation of the relevant maritime economic zones is required, while at the same time a series of long-term conflicting issues like the so-called Cyprus Question, the Aegean Dispute and the Middle-East Issue, render the possibility of a comprehensive settlement of the maritime zones rather low (G. Chrysochou, 2011,2014).

Conclusive remarks

The contemporary world is well interconnected and there is an obvious trend towards economic globalization (P. Streeten, 2001). Clearly, the Mediterranean Sea and especially its eastern section, hold an important role within the wider context of international relations. There is a very simple explanation why: its key-role in the wider framework of the contemporary maritime traffic system. As already pointed out In brief, there are two important sea straits in the region: The first one is the Dardanelles, through which the Mediterranean Sea (and the Aegean Sea) communicate with the Black Sea and all the countries whose coasts are on the


Black Sea, while for the latter the access to the open (warm) seas is secured. The second gate under discussion is the Suez Canal, in Egypt. The specific technical infrastructure allows shipping to travel from the Mediterranean directly to the Indian Ocean (via the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden). All these regions form in line a very important maritime corridor that provides the shortest connection between Europe and Asia. (P. Siousiouras & D. Dalaklis (b), 2009). It was already pointed out that nearly four fifths of international trade is being conducted by sea and that the configuration of the Earth facilitates sea transport since three quarters of the planet’s surface is covered by sea or lakes. It is not a coincidence that current numbers of port-visits in Greece are extremely high; in the Aegean Sea there are numerous island that take advantage of shipping in order to connect with the main land mass of the country. Furthermore, geography is favoring Greece. As the interconnection point of three different continents, it is very well situated to be a hub for international trade. Last but not least, the country’s EU membership is a very valuable asset and Greece should aim to transform into the point of entry for all eastern European commerce transported by sea. However, more infrastructures (and therefore more

money) are needed. On the other hand, Greece, being now in financial crisis, appears however to have the potential to be an energy export hub, mainly through the TAP pipeline, as well as through pipelines of Russian interest which are under construction. Nevertheless the energy dependence of Greece on oil and gas is high, though it is benefited of the Greek owning of large oil and gas tankers. In addition, the analysis in hand also examined the new geopolitical aspect of the Mediterranean Sea and particularly what is currently happening in its Eastern basin. The main focus-point was the geopolitical implications of the recent discoveries of significant energy reserves in this region. The discovered hydrocarbon reserves of the Southeastern Med can and should play an important role in supplying the EU with natural gas in the long run. Therefore, the neighbouring states of Eastern Med, especially Cyprus, Israel, Greece and Turkey, should seek to maximize their role as alternative suppliers of the European Union. This prospect, with the expected future outcome of providing the first non-Russian gas of the so-called southern European energy corridor, imposes considerable benefits, particularly in relation to potential European funding for a pipeline construction (Eastern Med Pipeline), which will transfer to Central and Western Europe large amounts of natural

gas, as well as other relevant projects. For the time being the main issue at stake is that the energy resources near Cyprus can be exploited for the energy security of EU. Other important protagonists of the international arena are also part of the complex equation, with NATO and EU standing out. Therefore, the first conclusion to be drawn here is that geopolitical confrontations and changes in the region will continue in the near future. Nonetheless, linked to the geopolitical dimension there is one more essential parameter; that of International Law of the Sea. UNCLOS provides the necessary framework to define the limits of maritime boundaries between adjacent states, since it is the core document of international conventional law, which regulates issues related to the establishment and delimitation of ΕΕΖs. For the moment the question of delimitation of maritime zone boundaries in Southeastern Med remains a point of friction for many of the states involved in.

*Dr Georgios Chrysochou (Senior Lecturer Maritime Sciences, Hellenic Naval Academy), Piraeus, Greece, Tel. +30 210 45 81 644, email: Dr Dimitrios Dalaklis (Assistant Professor Maritime Sciences, World Maritime University), Malmö, Sweden, Tel. +46 40 35 63 07, email:

Geopolitics of energy Yiannis Pispirigos



President Trump sharply changed the federal government’s approach to the environment as he cleared the way for two major oil pipelines that had been blocked, and set in motion a plan to curb regulations that slow other building projects.



In his latest moves to dismantle the legacy of his predecessor, Mr. Trump resurrected the Keystone XL pipeline that had stirred years of debate, and expedited another pipeline in the Dakotas that had become a major flash point for Native Americans. He also signed a directive ordering an end to protracted environmental reviews.

Unraveling Obama’s energy agenda “I am, to a large extent, an environmentalist, I believe in it,” Mr. Trump said during a meeting with auto industry executives. “But it’s out of control, and we’re going to make it a very short process. And we’re going to either give you your permits, or we’re not going to give you your permits. But you’re going to know very quickly. And generally speaking, we’re going to be giving you your permits.” The decisions expanded an effort to unravel much of the policy structure left by former President Barack Obama, who made fighting climate change a central priority. Just a day earlier, Mr. Trump formally abandoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an ambitious 12-nation trade pact negotiated by Mr. Obama. In his opening days in office, Mr. Trump has also modified or reversed Mr. Obama’s policies on health care,

abortion and housing while ordering a freeze of any pending regulations left behind by the former administration. The pipelines were more about symbol than substance but generated enormous passion on both sides of the debate. Mr. Obama rejected the proposed Keystone pipeline in 2015, arguing that it would undercut American leadership in curbing the reliance on carbon energy. Environmental activists quickly denounced Mr. Trump’s decisions. “Donald Trump has been in office for four days, and he’s already proving to be the dangerous threat to our climate we feared he would be,” said Michael Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club. Mr. Trump made clear on the campaign trail that he saw Mr. Obama’s environmental policies as a threat to the economy and dismissed climate change as a hoax perpetrated by China. Myron Ebell, a climate change denier who headed Mr. Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency transition team, has drafted a 50-page blueprint for how he could eliminate Mr. Obama’s climate change policies. “It is designed to implement all of the president’s campaign trail promises – every single one,” Mr. Ebell said this week in an interview. Mr. Trump’s biggest target may be

emission rules that would force the closing of hundreds of coal-fired power plants meant to be replaced by wind and solar power. But they are caught up in court battles that could run for months or years. By contrast, he could more quickly soften Mr. Obama’s rules requiring tougher vehicle emission standards. Mr. Trump met on Tuesday with executives of major American automakers, who complained that before leaving office, Mr. Obama finalized an ambitious EPA rule requiring that vehicles average 54.5 miles per gallon by 2026. Mr. Trump said he would help with burdensome regulations, but offered no specifics. Mr. Trump could lift a moratorium instituted last year by Mr. Obama on new coal mining leases on public lands. As soon as next month, the Republican-led Congress may pass legislation undoing Mr. Obama’s regulations on the practice of mountaintop-removal coal mining and on leaks of planet-warming methane emissions from oil and gas drilling rigs.

The pipelines

In the meantime, the Keystone and Dakota pipelines provided Mr. Trump with visible ways to demonstrate action. As proposed by TransCanada, an Alberta firm, Keystone would carry 800,000 barrels a day from the Canadian oil


Mr. Trump’s biggest target may be emission rules that would force the closing of hundreds of coal-fired power plants meant to be replaced by wind and solar power

sands to the Gulf Coast. Republicans and some Democrats said that it would create jobs and expand energy resources, while environmentalists said it would encourage a form of oil extraction that produces more gases that warm the planet than normal petroleum. Studies showed that the pipeline would not have a momentous effect on jobs or the environment, but both sides made it into a symbolic test case. The State Department estimated that Keystone would support 42,000 temporary jobs for two years – about 3,900 of them in construction and the rest through indirect support, like food service – but only 35 permanent jobs. Similarly, the government concluded that Keystone’s carbon emissions would equal less than 1 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. “Keystone has never been a significant issue from an environmental point of view in substance, only in symbol,” said David L. Goldwyn, an energy market analyst and a former head of the State Department’s energy bureau in the Obama administration.

But it was a symbol Mr. Trump found important enough to seize on early in his presidency. He signed an executive memorandum inviting TransCanada “to promptly resubmit its application to the Department of State for a presidential permit” for the pipeline, although the document did not guarantee approval. The president told reporters he would “renegotiate some of the terms” – including possibly an insistence that the pipeline be built with American steel – but left little doubt that he wanted it approved. “We’ll see if we can get that pipeline built,” he said. “A lot of jobs.” Some news reports said that the EPA and other departments had issued orders forbidding employees from issuing news releases or posting on social media. But longtime officials in multiple agencies said the guidance was similar to that of when Mr. Obama took office eight years ago.

Oil & gas Yiannis Pispirigos

22 58

THE BLURRY FUTURE OF OIL MARKET Donald Trump’s pledge to make America independent from OPEC isn’t a new refrain and dates back to 1970s when Henry Kissinger addressed it. President George W. Bush also aimed to cut imports from the Middle East when he famously said the nation was “addicted to oil.” The mission failed, though.

As some believe, the target does not seem to be an easy one but it may not be completely unattainable. The U.S. oil production has been recently on the rise and signs point toward possible energy independence. The U.S. Energy Information Administration in its report on drilling productivity forecasted a monthly rise of 41,000 barrels a day in February oil production to 4.748 million barrels a day. If maintained, the expected U.S. February production gain means shale production will be up at least a half million barrels per day by the end of the year.

U.S. energy mistakes…

However, in an e-mail interview with the “Tehran Times”, the Iranian president of Vienna Energy Research Group, Fereydoun Barkeshli, underscored the U.S. administration’s failure in its quest to free the country’s economy from foreign oil and elaborated that the nonsuccess is many folded, most notably due to the following: “U.S. oil majors are active in several countries including the Middle Eastern oil rich nations and their involvements

is quite complicated. As such the U.S. is compelled to buy parts of its bounty back in America. This complicated relationship impedes the import of foreign-crude back to the country. The second important aspect of the U.S. energy mix is the country’s financial side of the oil investment and extraction. In America, pricing mechanism of crude is based on Fiscal Breakeven tools. That policy makes the U.S. oil pricing different from the rest of the world. Company drilling is based on cost-benefit analysis which subsequently based on breakeven oil prices. As such, no matter how the global oil markets behave and regardless of world oil prices, the United States must follow its own pricing policies. This implies the independent or export-free energy is something close to impossible, unless America decides to opt a different option that of course requires time and policy options that is currently much too a distant possibility.

America First Energy Policy

Having said the above, President Trump has clearly opted to rely on shale oil and shale gas for an America Energy first.


Shale oil and shale gas (BTU), would mean that based on breakeven pricing mechanism, international oil price has to stay at above $70 per barrel in order to make the production economically feasible. As such, there is no way the U.S. can ignore global oil markets in quest for America First Energy Policy.” In addition to the feasibility of Trump’s energy independence plan, the other major cause of concern in international oil market voices that Trump’s decision simultaneous with the rise in shale production could act as a real threat to OPEC production pact for they may upend efforts by OPEC and non-OPEC members who reached an agreement back on December 10, 2016 to lower output by nearly 1.8 million barrels per day (bpd) aiming to ease a global glut that has weighed on oil prices for more than two years. In their Jan. 22 meeting in Vienna, energy ministers from OPEC and non-OPEC countries shrugged off the vow by Trump to end dependence on the group’s oil, underlining that U.S. is closely integrated in the global energy market. As Barkeshli, who is National Iranian Oil Company’s (NIOC)

former general manager for OPEC and international affairs, explained: “OPEC’ decision to turn a blind eye on global oil market was intended at the followings: –To force non-OPEC to cooperate with the organization’s pricing policies that proved to be relatively successful, –To send a powerful message to U.S. shale oil and gas producers. In fact Mr. Trump has already and before stepping into the White House received a strong message from OPEC. The organization has already thrown some 2.5 million barrels a day of shale oil out of market. This volume of crude from shale cracking cannot be immediately return to the market, because of complicated cracking production structure. It is possible that for the next decade or so cracking technology would impact the procedure, but until then the world and the U.S. crude oil demand will also rise to compensate the added production from shale. OPEC cannot raise crude oil price all on its own. Of world global oil consumption

only some 33.4 million barrels a day come from OPEC. But can push crude prices all by itself. Having said that, I do believe that the Trump administration will not choose to counter OPEC’s policies towards market stabilization.”

And as he predicted:

“OPEC ministers will sooner or later call on American shale oil producer to join in and voice for the support of the organization’s policies in its path for market stability.” The other considerable concern is felt for how the new American president will deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran, regarding that the Asian country stands among major OPEC oil producers. Some believe that Trump’s election of Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson to head the Department of State, who ran Exxon Mobil- the American multinational oil and gas corporation and did business with Iran- can trigger development of U.S.Iran oil relations. Barkeshli believes that: “President Trump is a rare Republican exception in contemporary U.S. policies who does not have his roots in oil


OPEC cannot raise crude oil price all on its own. Of world global oil consumption only some 33.4 million barrels a day come from OPEC. But can push crude prices all by itself – Barkeshli, National Iranian Oil Company’s (NIOC) former general manager for OPEC and international affairs

industry. When a Republican goes to the White House, it is a positive sign for the organization. In fact it was a surprise for OPEC when a Republican candidate with no oil industry background was elected. Nevertheless, he nominated an oil industry veteran as foreign secretary. The other good news for OPEC is that his nominee for secretary for environment protection is an anti-environmental measures veteran.” In general, evaluating Trump’s stance towards Iran as relatively quiet and soft, he noted that “In Washington, Israel is mentioned as a major obstacle in the two countries’ normalization schedule in business and trade, other than that Trump may share a few common ground with Iran.” “It’s been more and same here in Tehran,” he added. In Barkeshli’s opinion, Iran is an important option for the U.S. regarding the Islamic country’s ambitious plan to join the class of $2 trillion GDP owners that qualifies it to join the BRICS. “Middle East is currently a less favorable policy and trade option for America. On the other hand Central Asia and Caucasus is gaining importance in that country’s energy and trade relationships. In this frame, Iran has to reevaluate her regional approach.”

And the future

But what will happen to oil prices in the future? BTA could have a significant impact on the global oil market, pushing

U.S. crude prices higher and triggering large-scale domestic production. In better words, while global crude market is only starting to rebalance, the ramp up in U.S. production would create a renewed large oil surplus next year. That could lead to an immediate sharp decline in global oil prices. In a Tuesday note titled “Destination-based taxation and the oil market”, Goldman’s Damien Courvalin focused on this issue and found that the price gain from shift to destination-based border adjusted corporate tax would prompt U.S. drillers to “sharply increase activity” as a result of lower U.S. corporate tax rates, which would aggressively incentivize shale drilling, resulting in a global oil price shock, sending domestic prices spiking, as global prices slide. Trump passed his first week in office fulfilling his campaign promises one by one and he seems intended to keep his vows via executive orders. What was discussed above is, for sure, a part of the high impact his domestic and foreign policies will have on the global oil market and prices. The time is not ripe yet to make a definite prediction over the future of the oil market with Trump and his unpredictability.

Legal insight Dr Lorenc Gordani


Western Balkans Governance of Energy Efficiency Energy Efficiency is often described as the EU’s biggest energy resource, the “first fuel”, as it is competitive, cost effective and widely available. Energy efficiency will also enhance energy security, while at the same time decreasing emissions. This is why the EU has ambitious energy savings targets for 2020 and 2030, and ‘energy efficiency first’ is one of the principles of the Energy Union project.

The energy intensity of the Western Balkan countries is very high compared to the average of the EU. Similar to other transition economies, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia, emerged from the socialist era with energy intensive economies. Significant progress was made over the past 15 years and energy intensity, defined as the energy consumed to produce a unit of GDP, declined by approximately 20% - 25%. However, the WB6 remain 3 times more energy intensive than the EU28 at large and 1.6 times more than new member states from Central and Eastern Europe.

10 35% for households, 35 40% in the public sector, 10-30% in services and 5 25% in industry and commerce.

These countries therefore have an efficiency potential unrivalled in Europe. The residential and transport sectors represent the largest components of Total Final Energy Consumption, accounting for 50 to 70% of the total. Industry is also a significant consumer in Serbia, Montenegro and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Various IEA and World Bank estimates point to potential savings in the WB6 of up to 10% in the transport sector,

Through their membership of the Energy Community, the Western Balkan countries have already committed to adopting EU Energy Efficiency rules, norms and standards. Transposition is on its way. In 2009, the Energy Community recognised the importance of energy efficiency and decided to incorporate the relevant EU directives into its legal framework. Energy Community members must thus implement three Directives: Energy

Tapping it will contribute towards muchneeded economic growth and reduce reliance on imported hydrocarbons. In monetary terms, public buildings and households alone could yield savings valued at €805 million by 2020 according to the Energy Community. Delivering such savings would have a significant impact on trade balances and public and household budgets, enhance energy security, protect against necessary energy tariffs adjustments, and contribute to economic growth.



Efficiency, Energy Performance of Buildings, Energy Labelling of Products. However, a proper legal transposition of the energy efficiency legal framework alone will not bring the significant changes needed to realize the energy saving potential of the Contracting Parties. Durable impact can only be achieved through investments both by public sector institutions and private actors with commercial and International Financial Institutions (IFIs) financing. The necessary efficiency investment must be financed for the potential to be harvested. The EC, the Energy Community, the WBIF, IFIs and bilateral donors are providing technical assistance to beneficiary countries to facilitate compliance. Energy efficiency projects typically entail significant up-front spending, subsequently recovered through savings on energy expenditures achieved over a long period. Availability of long term financing to financial intermediaries with a good appreciation of the economics of energy efficiency investment is thus necessary to support the sector.

The EU, international financial institutions, and donors have all made substantial contributions to making dedicated energy efficiency finance available and affordable. Their contribution has been essential in opening the market in the past ten years, through the provision of longterm funding, technical assistance and incentives. They still provide most of the available funding to commercial banks. Some commercial banks fund their own energy efficiency initiatives, usually in smaller volumes and often after an initial learning phase using official funding and technical assistance. While the interest in energy efficiency is still recent and the regulatory framework incomplete, the financing offering in the region is already significant and diversified. Active Energy Efficiency facilities focusing on the region and supported by development institutions and/or donors represent cumulative funds in excess of â‚Ź750 million in 2016. Most facilities rely on local financial intermediaries to identify and implement projects using funds provided by the

facilities. Approximately 45 commercial banks or financial institutions offer energy efficiency of renewable energy financial products in the region. They target mostly the corporate, SME sector and household sectors and more infrequently the public or agricultural sector. Some facilities can also lend directly to larger projects. The largest facilities, GGF and REEP, are regional in scope. All the others are more restrictive, usually targeting a single country. Among country facilities, Serbia is the principal country of destination, followed by Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Facilities are being used at a brisk pace, with approximately â‚Ź145 million left available in 2016 for new projects. Lastly, on 09 Feb 2017, European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations Commissioner Johannes Hahn signed an agreement in the amount of 50 million euros with international financial institutions (EBRD, EIB and KfW) at the Western Balkan 6 energy ministerial in Skopje. The grant will assist Western Balkan 6 governments


in preparing or upgrading their energy efficiency laws, support energy efficiency measures, help municipalities to attract private investment in the public sector and, finally, provide incentives to soften the investment burden on consumers. In addition, the EC is providing a €30 million grant to implement the next phase of the Regional Energy Efficiency Programme (REEP) which aims to unleash the energy efficiency and renewable energy potential of the Western Balkans Six. The REEP programme encourages the private and public sectors to take a leading role in promoting energy efficiency as envisaged in countries’ national energy efficiency action plans, developed as part of the Energy Community process. However, the money is not the only factor at play. There are still many barriers to the uptake of energy efficiency measures, primarily of a legal and regulatory nature. A significant amount of additional technical support and assistance is dedicated to assisting the countries in overcoming these barriers via project preparation assistance, information and awareness raising campaigns, etc. Furthermore, scaling up energy efficiency in all economic sectors, including industry, buildings, transport and services, will require that additional barriers are removed and a large enough market for energy services is developed. There is also work to create the right

framework to encourage efficiency investments, and to build up capacity to manage these investments. The emphasis so far has predominantly been on the corporate sector, particularly SMEs. Attention devoted to the public sector or households is more limited, despite their strong potential for realising significant energy savings. A number of reasons can explain the situation, including the lenders ‘perception of associated risks and procurement difficulties in the public sector. Among the broad range of products already available, most involve incentives, from investment grants to the final client to incentives paid to financial intermediaries and risk sharing schemes lowering the cost of capital. EE officials from the WB6 countries consider incentives necessary given local living standards and economic conditions, high investment costs and long payback periods, high market interest rates, incomplete regulatory frameworks, subsidised energy prices and low levels of awareness in most market segments, particularly in the residential/household segment. Financial institutions consider that incentives are part of the mix required for successful energy efficiency schemes. International experience shows that concessional finance plays a critical role where market barriers are present and restrict the scale of commercial lending. Grants help significantly to scale up the market and reach ambitious targets to be adopted in the region.

The banking sector in the region can be reluctant to invest when project bankability is adversely affected by low energy tariffs, lack of consumptionbased billing, absence of adequate legal structures facilitating lending for multi-owners building renovation, or when the long term funding required by energy efficiency loans is scarce. The perception of sector-specific risk is usually high within commercial banks, particularly for residential projects, and the management commitment in local banks is not always very strong. Conclusively, much more remains to be done if the countries of the Western Balkans are to reach EU energy efficiency standards. The regulatory framework must be improved to facilitate investment. Initiatives are needed to bring in new actors and impact markets such as the residential sector or develop waste-to-energy. The region’s leaders should embrace the ‘energy efficiency first’ principle to improve their countries’ energy security and seems that this is only the beginning of the EU’s engagement in this sector.

* Dr Lorenc Gordani is Director of Legal Office at the Albanian Renewable Energy Association - AREA

Legal insight Dr Yannis Kelemenis and Konstantina Karveli*

24 64

the abuse of dominant position of PPC in the lignite supply market In December 2016 the General Court of the European Union, following appeals of the Commission, dismissed the applications lodged by the Public Power Corporation of Greece (PPC) relating to the annulment of C (2008) 824 and C (2009) 6244 decisions of the Commission. In particular, the Commission held that the Hellenic Republic grants and keeps in force privileged rights to PPC for the exploitation of lignite resources in Greece and, in light of this, designated specific measures for discontinuing such anticompetitive effects.

The decisions of the Commission After receiving the complaint that under Legislative Decree 4029/1959 and Statute 134/1975 that the Hellenic Republic has granted an exclusive free license to PPC to excavate and exploit lignite, the Commission adopted decision C (2008) 824. According to this decision, the Hellenic Republic, by granting and keeping and in force privileged rights to PPC for the exploitation of lignite, has created inequality of opportunity between economic operators regarding access to primary fuels for the production of electricity and has enabled PPC to maintain and reinforce its dominant position in the Greek wholesale electricity market. Thus, the Commission required that within eight months from the notification of the decision the Hellenic Republic should adopt and implement specific measures intended to lift the anticompetitive effects. The Commission delineated the measures to be taken in its decision C (2009) 6244. According to these, the Hellenic Republic should do the following: (a) grant exploitation rights on the deposits of the regions of Drama

(Eastern Macedonia), Elassona, Vegora and Vevi (Western Macedonia) through tender procedures to entities other than PPC, unless no other reliable offer was made; (b) prohibit the owners of the deposits of Drama, Elassona and Vegora to sell the extracted lignite to PPC, unless no other reliable offer was made, for as long as PPC would own exploitation rights of more than 60% of all lignite reserves licensed for exploitation in Greece; (c) carry out a new allocation procedure, if the ongoing procedure to award the rights for the exploitation of the Vevi deposit was cancelled; in such an event, a bid by PPC would not be admitted, unless no other reliable offer was made, and the owner of the deposit would be prohibited to sell the extracted lignite to PPC, unless no other reliable purchase offer was made, for as long as PPC would own exploitation rights of more than 60% of all lignite reserves licensed for exploitation in Greece; and (d) repeal any provision allowing special treatment to PPC for the allocation of exploitation rights on lignite reserves.

The appeal of decisions

PPC, supported by the Hellenic


Republic, brought actions to the General Court of the European Union for the annulment of the above Commission decisions. These actions were admitted by the General Court and the Commission’s decisions were annulled. Then the Commission lodged appeals before the Court of Justice of the European Union, which rejected some of the pleas raised by PPC and referred the case back to the General Court.

The initial annulment of the Commission’s decisions by the General Court of EU In support of its action, PPC relied on four pleas, i.e.: (a) errors of law in applying the combined provisions of Articles 86(1) EC and 82 EC (Articles 106(1) TFEU and 102 TFEU) and a manifest error of assessment, (b) infringement of the duty to state reasons under Article 253 EC (Article 296 TFEU), (c) infringement of the principles of legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations and the protection of private property and misuse of powers, and (d) infringement of the principle of proportionality.

According to the General Court, the prohibitions laid down by Article 86(1) EC (Article 106(1) TFEU) are addressed to Member States, whereas Article 82 EC (Article 102 TFEU) is addressed to undertakings, prohibiting them from abusing a dominant position. In the case of the combined application of those two provisions, infringement of Article 86(1) EC (Article 106(1) TFEU) by a Member State cannot be established unless the State measure is contrary to Article 82 EC (Article 102 TFEU). The General Court, therefore, raised the question relating to the extent of an abuse, even if only potential, of the dominant position by an undertaking. Such an abuse must be identified, when it has a link with the State measure. According to the General Court, by finding only that PPC, a former monopolistic undertaking, continues to maintain a dominant position in the wholesale electricity market by virtue of the advantage conferred upon it by privileged access to lignite and that that situation creates an inequality of opportunities in that market between the applicant (PPC) and other undertakings, the Commission had neither identified nor established to a

sufficient legal standard to what abuse, within the meaning of Article 82 EC (Article 102 TFEU), the State measure in question has led or could lead the undertaking concerned. Accordingly, the General Court held that the mere fact that the PPC finds itself in an advantageous situation in comparison with its competitors, by reason of a State measure, does not in itself constitute an abuse of a dominant position. On this ground, the argument raised by PPC, in the context of the first plea, was, according to the General Court, well founded and annulled the contested decision, without having to examine the other complaints, parts and pleas that were submitted.

The appeal of the Commission before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) In support of its appeal, the Commission relied on two grounds: On the one hand, it claimed that the General Court erred in law with regard to the interpretation and application of Article 86(1) EC in conjunction with Article 82 EC, in finding that the Commission was required to identify and establish the conduct

Dr Yannis Kelemenis


constituting abuse of a dominant position to which the State measure in question led, or could have led. On the other hand, the Commission, in its second ground of appeal, contended that paragraphs 85 to 93 of the General Court judgment were based on incorrect, defective and insufficient reasoning, on distortion of the evidence and on a misinterpretation of the basis of the contested decision.

The General Court rejected the plea relating to PPC’s argument that the Commission did nοt take into account the recent developments in the Greek electricity market Contrary to the General Court’s reasoning, CJEU found that a potential or actual anti-competitive consequence is liable to result from the State measure at issue and that it is not necessary to identify any further abuse, other than the abuse resulting from the situation brought about by the measure itself. Consequently, CJEU ruled that the General Court erred in law in holding that the Commission had neither identified

nor established to a sufficient legal standard the abuse and found that PPC continued to maintain a dominant position in the wholesale electricity market by virtue of its privileged access to lignite and that the situation created inequality of opportunity in that market. Therefore, the court decided that the first ground of appeal must be upheld and the judgment under appeal must be set aside, without having to examine the second ground of appeal. According to the judgment, PPC was wrong to assert that, in order to apply the principle that the public undertaking extended its dominant position from one market to another neighbouring and separate market, the Commission should have shown that the State measure at issue grants or enhances special or exclusive rights. On the contrary, pursuant to case-law, it was sufficient that the measure at issue creates a situation in which a public undertaking or an undertaking on which the State has conferred special or exclusive rights is led to abuse its dominant position. Furthermore, the Court ruled that it is not necessary for the Commission to show in every case that the undertaking concerned enjoys a monopoly or that a State measure awards it exclusive or special rights over a neighbouring and separate market, or that it has any regulatory powers. The Court also rejected PPC’s arguments that the Commission should prove the impact of the infringement of the combined provisions of Articles 86(1) EC and 82 EC on the interests of consumers,

and that the Commission should define lignite as an essential facility given that the Commission only referred to PPC’s situation in the electricity wholesale market as a “quasi-monopoly”.

The final decision of the General Court Following the ruling of the CJEU, the case was referred back to the General Court for re-examination. The pleas examined by the General Court related to the Commission’s alleged error in law when applying Article 86 (1) EC in conjunction with Article 82 EC, and to its manifest error of assessment regarding (a) the definition of the relevant markets, (b) the fact that Greek legislation, on the basis of which PPC acquired rights in respect of the exploitation of lignite, does not treat the situation as one leading to unequal opportunity to the detriment of competitors, and (c) the recent developments in the Greek electricity market. The General Court first examined the market definition adopted by the Commission. The Commission had concluded that the State measures in question concerned two markets: the upstream market of supply of lignite (excluding other combustibles) and the downstream market, i.e. the wholesale markets for the production and supply of electricity (excluding the markets of transmission and distribution of electricity). As for the geographical markets at issue, the market for the supply of lignite was of national dimension and the wholesale electricity


market extended to the territory of the Greek interconnected network of mainland Greece. Furthermore, according to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic, by granting lignite exploitation rights to PPC and by excluding or hindering competitors from entry to that market, allowed PPC to maintain or strengthen its dominant position in the downstream market, namely the wholesale electricity market. On the other hand, in relation to the upstream market, PPC argued that the supply of lignite is not a separate market but falls within a market that covers all fuels and, therefore, the upstream market should include all fuels from which electricity is produced. It therefore challenged the definition of the upstream market as adopted by the Commission. Regarding the downstream market, it claimed that the Commission took no account of the high level of market liberalisation following the establishment of a mandatory day-ahead market. The General Court sided with the Commission’s arguments and concluded that the upstream market

has been correctly defined and that there is no deficient, incorrect and insufficient reasoning in the Commission’s arguments. Regarding the unequal opportunity to the detriment of competitors, the General Court rejected the arguments of PPC and confirmed that competitors have had no free access to the market of lignite supply. In particular, it indicated that the repeal of Statute 134/1975 regarding the privileged access of PPC to the exploitation rights of lignite and the possibility on paper that lignite reserves may be allocated to third parties were not by themselves sufficient to mitigate the inequality between PPC and its competitors and PPC’s dominant position in lignite deposits. The General Court also rejected the plea relating to PPC’s argument that the Commission did nοt take into account the recent developments in the Greek electricity market and found that there were shortcomings in the examination of evidence. Indeed, it found that the recent (at the time) legislative developments through Law 3175/2003 (on the granting of licenses to entities other than PPC

for the construction of new power plants) were not sufficient to mitigate the dominant position of PPC.

One-way street

The above rulings resulted in that the Hellenic Republic had indeed granted PPC a privileged access to the cheapest available fuel for electricity production in Greece. This reinforced PPC’s dominant position in the wholesale electricity market at a level close to a monopoly by excluding or hindering newcomers from market entry. Effectively, this enabled PPC to protect its quasi-monopolistic market position despite the regulatory liberalisation of the wholesale electricity market. Taking into account these rulings, the Hellenic Republic and PPC must comply with the Commission’s decisions, i.e. to implement the designated specific measures for the liberalisation of the upstream lignite supply market.

*Dr Yannis Kelemenis, Partner, Kelemenis & Co., and Konstantina Karveli, Associate, Kelemenis & Co.

Wind energy Christos Filippidis

25 68

TOP 10 ONSHORE WIND FARMS EnergyWorld discovered and rounds up ten of world’s largest windfarms based on megawatt capacity.

8 –bHorse Hollow Wind Energy Center, Texas, USA


10 – Fântânele-Cogealac Wind Farm, Fântânele & Cogealac, Romania

The USA and China dominate the onshore wind market in terms of the world’s biggest farms, with India and Europe also represented in the top 10 list.

10. Fântânele-Cogealac Wind Farm, Fântânele & Cogealac, Romania – Capacity 600 MW Contributing around 10 percent of Romania’s renewables output, Fantanele-Cogealac Wind Farm is one of the largest wind projects in Europe and cost $1.5 billion to put together. There are 240 turbines using the latest turbine technology from GE, with parts coming in from Germany, Brazil and Spain. The European Investment Bank provided a E200m loan for the construction and development of the wind project.

8. Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center, Texas, USA – Capacity

735.5 MW

Split into three parts, Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center is a flagship example for the USA’s wind energy sector. Housed in Texas, the leading US state for wind power, the site can be found in Taylor and Nolan counties. It was built and is owned and operated by a subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources, with 421 turbines capable of generating enough electricity to power more than 220,600 homes.

9. Capricorn Ridge Wind Farm, Texas, USA – Capacity 662.5 MW Located in Sterling and Coke counties of Texas, Capricorn Ridge is a 662.5MW windfarm comprising more than 340 GE wind turbines and 65 Siemens turbines. The farm generates enough electricity for more than 200,000 homes and effectively takes 186,000 cars off the road when evaluating equivalent fossil fuel output.

9 – Capricorn Ridge Wind Farm, Texas, USA

7. Fowler Ridge Wind Farm, Indiana, USA – Capacity – 750 MW In terms of sheer size, Fowler Ridge is one of the largest wind farms in the world, spanning some 50,000 acres and supplying enough power for 200,000 homes. The plant is owned and operated jointly by BP Alternative Energy North America and Dominion Resources, each with a 50 percent stake.

6 – Roscoe Wind Farm, Texas, USA


6. Roscoe Wind Farm, Texas, USA – Capacity – 781.5 MW

5. Shepherds Flat Wind Farm, Oregon, USA – Capacity – 845 MW

4. Jaisalmer Wind Park, Rajasthan, India – Capacity 1,064 MW

Once the world’s largest onshore windfarm, Roscoe is another fine example of Texas leading the way in this sector. The Roscoe Wind Farm comprises more than 620 turbines spread across 100,000 acres, capable of producing enough electricity to power 265,000 homes. Operational since 2009, the project cost around $1 billion to complete.

Shepherds Flat opened in 2012 and is a $2 billion project backed by Google. Contirbuting a sizeable chunk of Oregon’s renewable energy, it is predicted that the site generates $37 million in annual impact from the electricity it produces. The three wind farms deploy 338 wind turbines across 32,100 acres to generate 845 megawatts of clean energy – enough to power 227,000 homes.

India is one of the leading providers of onshore wind, with Jaisalmer Wind Park one of the country’s most important sites, generating more than 1,000MW of power. It comprises of a cluster of wind farm sites within Jaisalmer including Amarsagar Badabaug, Tejuva and Soda Moda among others. The wind park houses projects of various companies including Mytrah Energy, Hindustan Zinc Limited, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Rajasthan State Mines & Mineral Limited, Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Limited and Rajasthan Gums Limited.

3 – Muppandal Wind Farm, Tamil Nadu, India

3. Muppandal Wind Farm, Tamil Nadu, India – Capacity 1,500 MW Muppandal is a small village on the southern tip of India in Kanyakumari District, in the state of Tamil Nadu. Though a small village, it is home to a series of massive sites containing turbines which produce 1,500MW of electricity for the region. The Indian government plans to massively expand its wind power programme to include village communities, where a large proportion of the country’s 1.25 billion people still live.

1. Gansu Wind Farm, Gansu, China – Capacity 6,000 MW

In 2012, Gansu’s capacity surpassed the total wind-generated-electricity produced by all of the United Kingdom, and it’s just the largest of six mega-wind farms currently under construction throughout China. The project will produce a massive 20,000MW of power by 2020 and will cost nearly $20 billion to build. Turbines are going up at an astronomical rate of 35 per day across the three areas that make up the power base. Developers on the project include Huaneng and Datang.


2. Alta Wind Energy Center, California, USA – Capacity 1,548 MW The Alta Wind Energy Center is USA’s largest wind facility and second largest onshore site in the world. It is located in the wind resource area at the Tehachapi Pass in Kern County and windfarm supplies 1,548 megawatts (MW) of renewable energy to Southern California Edison (SCE) customers. It will continue through to 2040 under a 3,000 MW wind power development initiative, producing enough electricity to power 450,000 homes.

Your Energy Magazine for SE Europe & East Med

ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION Νame or company ________________________________________________________________ Address ________________________________________________________________ Post code / Country: ________________________________________________ E-mail: _ _________________________________________________________ Tel.: _____________________________________________________________ I would like an invoice


Annual subscription for Europe (bi-montly / 6 Issues) Companies & individuals 50 euros / year n Subscription with presentation Two pages company presentation 400 euros / year n Yellow pages directory inclusion 100 euros / year n

Profession: _______________________________________________________ T.V.A. / V.A.T.: _____________________________________________________ Method of payment

n 2) I made a deposit to National Bank of Greece n

1) I enclose a cheque payable to TRIM S.A.

IBAN: GR64 0110 1870 0000 1874 7003 251 – SWIFT/BIC ETHNGRAA 3) Please charge my credit card

n Visa n Switch / Maestro n Issue number n n n n n n n

Mastercard Card nr.

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Expires n n n n Name on card

Please complete this coupon and send it to the following address: ROMANIA All Media Designers S.R.L. energyworld Magazine șos. Nicolae Titulescu nr. 3 Bloc A1, ap.62, et.8, Sector 1 București, CP 011131, România Tel.: +40 213110455 E: GREECE TRIM S.A. energyworld Magazine 5, Grivogiorgou Street 115 28 Athens - Greece Tel.: +30 210 7240510 E:

Signature _ _______________________________________________________

BULGARIA ALEANA Commercial & Media Services Ltd E:

Date _____________________________________________________________






INTERNATIONAL DG Energy-European Comission DM 2403/73 Rue J.-A. Demot 24, 1040, Brussels, Belgium Tel.: +32 229 92460 Email: EWEA 80, Rue d’Arlon, B-1040 Brussels, Belgium Tel.: +32 2 213 1811 Email:


International Energy Agency (IEA) 9, rue de la Fédération, Paris Cedex 15, 75739 Paris-France Tel.: +33 1 40 57 65 00, Fax: +33 1 40 57 65 09 Email: IRENA - International Renewable Energy Agency CI Tower, Khalidiyah (32nd) Street Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates Tel.: +971 2 4179000 World Energy Council Regency House, 1-4 Warweek Street, 5th floor London, W1B 5LT, United Kingdom Tel.: +44 (0) 207734 5996

ALBANIA 01. GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS Ministry of Energy and Industry Dëshmorët & Kombit Boulevard, 1001 Tirana Tel.: +355 4 22222 45 ext.74111 Email:

02. ENERGY COMPANIES Albpetrol sh.a Lagja 29 Marsi Patos Tel./Fax: +342 70 44 14, +342 70 44 13 E-mail: Bankers Petroleum Ltd. Lagjja Kastrioti, Rr. Vasil Pecuke, Fier Tel.: +355 34 220845, Fax +355 34 220850 Email:

03. LAW FIRMS CMS Adonnino Ascoli & Cavasola Scamoni Rr. Sami Frasheri Red Building, 1001 Tirana

 Tel.: +335 4 4302123, Fax: +335 4 2400737 Email:, IKRP Rokas & Partners Albania sh.p.k. Donika Kastrioti Str., Palace No. 14, Apartment 7A Tirana, Albania Tel.: +355 4 2267707, E-mail:

BULGARIA 01. GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS Ministry of Economy and Energy 8, Slavyanska Str., Sofia 1052 Tel.: +359 2 9407001, +359 2 940 7545 Email:

Nuclear Regulatory Agency 69 Shipchenski prokhod Blvd, 1574 Sofia Tel.: +359 2 9406-800 Email:

SolarPro Holding 7 Sheinovo str., 1504 Sofia Email:

2. Non governmental

05. OIL & GAS

Balkan & Black Sea Petroleum Association 2 Hristo Belchev Str., 1000 Sofia, Bulgaria Tel.: +359 2 986 06 85 Email:

Bulgargas 47 Petar Parchevich Str., 1000 Sofia Tel.: +359 2 935 89 44, +359 2 935 89 88 Email:

Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry 9 Iskar Str., Sofia 1058 Tel.: +359 2 987 78 26, +359 2 8117 445 Email: Bulgarian Photovoltaic Association 42 Vitosha Blvd., Floor 2, App. 3, 1000 Sofia Tel.: +359 2 44 222 28 Email: Bulgarian Wind Energy Association 7 Paris Str., 5th Floor, Sofia 1000 Tel.: +359 2 4833820 Email: WWF Bulgaria 38 Ivan Vazov Street, 2nd fl., 3th ap., 1000 Sofia Tel.: +359 29505040 Email:

03. ENERGY COMPANIES AEC Kozlodui 3321 Kozlodui Tel.: +359 973 7 2020 Email: AES AES Maritza Iztok 1, 72 Lyuben Karavelov Str., Sofia Tel.: +359 42 901 634 Email: Brikel EAD Stara Zagora region, 6280 Galabovi Tel.: +359 8122000 Bulgarian Energy Holding 16 Vesalec Str., 1000 Sofia Tel.: +359 2 926 38 00 Email: CEZ 140 G.S. Rakovski Str., Sofia 1000 Tel.: +359 070010010 Email: Contour Global ContourGlobal Maritsa East 3 TPP, Mednikarovo, Stara Zagora 6294 Tel.: +359-42-663-251 Email:

04. ALTERNATIVE ENERGY E.Mirolio EAD Industrial Zone, 8800 Sliven Tel.: +359 44612418 Email:

Bulgartransgas POB 3, Housing estate ”Ljulin-2”, 66 Pancho Vladigerov Blvd, Sofia 1336 Tel.: + 359 /2/ 939 63 00 Email: Citigas Bulgaria EAD 4 Adam Mitskevich Str. Tel.: +359 2 925 9495 Email: DEXIA BULGARIA 9160 Devnya Industrial Zone Tel.: +359 887077077 Email: Direct Petrolium Bulgaria/TransAtlantic 16 Arh. J. Milanov str., 1164 Sofia Tel.: +3592 963 3244 Email: Lukoil 42, Todor Alexandrov Blvd, 1303 Bulgaria Tel.: +359 2 91 74 316 Email: OMV Bulgaria 1, Sofiiski Geroi Str., Sofia 1612 Tel.: +359 2 93 29710 Email: Petrol 43, Cherni Vrah Blvd, 1407 Sofia Tel.: +359 2 4960 300 Shell Bulgaria 48, Sitniakovo Blvd, Serdica Office, 8 floor, 1505 Sofia Tel.: +359 2 960 1752 Email:

07. Electricity traders DANS 120D, Simeonovsko Shose Blvd, 1700 Sofia Tel.: +359 2 42 100 10 EFG 10, Vihren Str., Pavlovo distr., Sofia Tel.: + 359 2 892 88 08 Email:

Cyprus Association of Renewable Energy Enterprises (SEAPEK) 30 Griva Digeni Avenue, 1080 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 665102 Fax: +357 22 669459 Cyprus Chamber of Commerce and Industry 38, Griva Digeni Ave. & 3 Deligiorgi Str., Tel.: +357 22 889800 Email:

03. INSTITUTIONS Cyprus Institute of Energy 2 Agapinoros & 3 Arch. Makariou, Megaro IRIS, 1st Floor, 1076 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 606060 Email:


Cyprus Energy Agency 10-12 Lefkonos Street, 1011 Nikosia Tel.: +357 22 667716, +357 22 667726 Email:

Antonis Paschalides & CO. LLC Makarios Ave. & Agias Elenis 36, Galaxias Building, Office 502, Nicosia 1061 Tel: +357 22 661 661

Energy MT 8, Bacho Kiro, 1000 Sofia Email:

Cyprus Energy Regulatory Authority 81-83 Griva Digeni Avenue, IAKOVIDI Building, 3rd Floor, 1080 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 666363 Email:

Christos M. Triantafyllidis 2, Evagorou Str., Irini Megaron, 3rd floor, Office 31-33, 1521 Nicosia

OET 38, Bokar Blvd, 1404 Sofia Tel.: +359 2 854 81 38, +359 894 777846 Email:

Cyprus Hydrocarbons Company Ltd 53, Strovolos Ave., Victory Building 2018 Strovolos, Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 203880 Fax: +357 22 311646

EFT 19, George Washington Street, 1000 Sofia Tel.: +359 2 439 9010 Email:

08. Law Firms CMS Cameron McKenna 14, Tzar Osvoboditel Blvd, 1000 Sofia Tel.: +359 897860421 Email: I. K. Rokas & Partners Law Firm – Branch Bulgaria, I. Rokas 12-16, Dragan Tzankov Blvd., Lozenetz Square, 1164 Sofia Tel.: +359 2 9521131 Fax: (+359 2) 9520680 E-mail:


Cyprus Institute of Energy 2 Agapinoros & Arch. Makariou III, Megaro IRIS, 1st Floor, 1076 Nicosia Tel. +357 22 606060 Fax:+357 22 606001/2 Cyprus Transmission System Operator of Electrical Energy 68, Evangelistrias Street, CY-2057 Strovolos Tel.: +357 22 611 611 Email: Cyprus Organisation for Storage and Management of Oil Stocks (COSMOS) 27, Heracleous Str., 2nd floor, Office 203, 2040 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 81 81 00 Email:

Energeo 279 B Tzar Boris III Bd, Sofia 1619 Tel.: +359 2 902 6580 Email:

Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment Louki Akrita Street, 1411 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 408305 Email:

10. PR

Ministry of Energy, Commerce, Industry and Tourism of the Republic of Cyprus Energy Sector 6, Andreas Araouzos Str., CY-1421, Nicosia Tel.: +357 22867100 Email:

AMI Communications 135 B, G.S.Rakovski Str., floor 2, Sofia 1000 Tel.: +359 2 989 5115 Email:

Cyprus Legal Answers 31, Estias Street, Aradippou, 7041 Larnaka Tel.: +357 99 641265, Fax: +357 22 672 333 Email: Kyriakides & Xenofontos Tel.: +357 25 352352, Fax: +357 25 352353 Michael Damianos & Co LLC 42E, Arch. Makarios Avenue, 1065 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 021212 Fax: +357 22 021213 Pamboridis LLC 45, Digeni Akrita Avenue, 1070 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 752525 Fax: +357 22 752800 Email:

05. CONSULTANTS ANETEL Larnaca District Development Agency 2 Ag. Lazarou Str., 7040 Voroklini Larnaca Tel.: +357 24 815280 Email: Aristodemou Nicolas 5A, Afxentiou Str., 2ndFloor, CY-1309, Nicosia Email: Aspen Trust Group Elia House, 77 Limassol Avenue, 2121 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 418888 Fax: +357 22 418890 Email: BIZSERV 32, Georgiou Griva Digeni Ave., 1066 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 375504 Fax: +357 22377583 Email:

D&D 54, W. Gladstone Str., 1000 Sofia Tel.: +359 2 866 98 99 Email:

Natural Gas Public Company (DEFA) 13 Limassol Avenue, Demetra Tower, 4th Floor, 2112 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 761 761 Email:



Cba Conquest Business Advisors 176, Athalassis Avenue, CY2025 Strovolos, Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 820800 Email:

Electricity Authority of Cyprus 11 Amfipoleos Str., 2025 Strovolos, 1399 Lefkosia Tel.: +357-22 20 10 00 Email:

Kassinis International Consulting Office 502, Kennedy Business Centre 12, Kennedy Ave, Ayioi Omologites, 1087 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 663280, Fax: +357 22 669469 Email:

01. GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS Commission for the Protection of Competition (C.P.C) of the Republic of Cyprus 53, Strovolos Ave., 2018 Strovolos, Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 606600



06. OIL & GAS


A.M.K. EcoLeaf Ltd - ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 15, Dodekanisou Str., Anthoupoli, Nicosia 2302 Tel.: +357 22 720670 Email:

A.S.G. Solar Technologies Ltd 28, Kinyras Street, Shop A, 8011 Paphos Tel.: 7777 7652, Fax +357 26 822 513 Email:

BP Eastern Mediterranean Ltd Dekhelia Rd, 6301 Larnaca Tel.: +357 24 812849 Email:

Aeoliki Ltd 41, Themistokli Dervi Street, 1066 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 875707, Fax: +357 22 757778 Email:

EDT Offshore PO Box 54548, Yermasoyia, Limassol 3725 Tel: +357 25 899000, Fax: +357 25 899002 Email:

Energy Sequel 3, Costa Loizou Street, Latsia, 2222 Nicosia Tel: +357 96 276761 E-mail:

Eni Cyprus Ltd 81-83, Grivas Digenis Avenue, 1090 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 503232, Fax: +357 22 503001 Email:

Ergo Energy 47, 28th October Street, 2414 Engomi - Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 505404 Email:

Exxonmobil Cyprus Inc 6 Ag. Prokopiou Str., Eggomi, Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 393101

09. PR

Hellenic Petroleum Cyprus Ltd 3, Ellispontou Str., 2015 Strovolos Tel.: +357 22 477000

ACTION GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS 6, Kondilaki Street, 1090 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 818 884 Email:

Intergaz Ltd Dhekelia Rd, 6303 Larnaca Tel.: +357 24 821 666 Email:

Marketway Marketway Building, 20, Karpenisiou Street, 1077 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 391000, Fax: +357 22 391150 Email:

Lanitis Green Energy Group Ltd 107B Nicou Pattichi Str., 3070 Limassol Tel.: +357 25 822314


Lukoil Cyprus Ltd 11, Limassol Ave., 5th Floor, 2112 Aglanja, Nicosia Tel.: +357 70001000 Email:

European University of Cyprus 6, Diogenis Str., Engomi, 1516 Nicosia Tel: +357.22.713000

Noble Energy International ltd. 73, Metochiou Street, 2407 Egnomi, Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 449190, Fax: +357 22 449208 Email:

Levantine Training Centre 5, Spyrou Kyprianou Street, Makedonias Court, Office 401, 4001 Limassol Tel.: +357 25 334250, Fax: +357 25 255262 Email:

Synergas Dhekelia Rd, 6303 Larnaca Tel.: +357 24 635286


Total G&P Cyprus 48, Themistocli Dervi, 5th floor, 1066 Nicosia Tel.: +357 22 202806, Fax: +357 22 202801 Email: VTT Vasiliko Ltd (A VTTI Group Company) Oil Storage Terminal, 75 Mari, 7736 Larnaca Tel.: +357 24 257500 Fax: +357 24 333299 Email:

07. ELECTRICITY FALCON ELECTRICITY POWER 135, Omonoias Ave, 8th floor, 3045 Limassol Tel.: +357 25 028560 Email: ΔΕΗ Quantum Energy Tel.: +357 22 792200 Email:

01. GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS Ministry of Reconstruction of Production, Environment and Energy (YPAPEN) 17, Amaliados Str., 115 23 Athens Tel.: +30 213 1515000, Fax: +30 210 6447608 Email: –

Hellenic Gas Transmission System Operator S.A. (DESFA) 357-359, Messogion Ave., 152 31 Chalandri Tel.: +30 210 6501200, Fax: +30 210-6749504 Email: Hellenic Electricity Distribution Network Operator S.A. (DEDDIE) 20, Perraivou & 5 Kallirrois Str., 117 43 Athens Tel./Fax: +30 210-9281698 Email: Centre for Renewable Energy Sources and Saving (KAPE) 19th km Marathonos Ave, 19009 Pikermi Tel.: +30 210-6603300 Fax: +30 210-6603301 Email: Regulatory Authority for Energy (RAE) 132, Pireos Str., 118 54 Athens Tel.: +30 210-3727400 Fax: +30 210-3255460 Email:

02. Non governmental Institute of Energy For South-East Europe (IENE) 3, Alex. Soutsou Str., 106 71 Athens Tel.: +30 210-3628457, Fax: +30 210-3646144 Email:

03. FEDERATIONS - UNIONS Hellenic Federation of Enterprises (SEB) 5, Xenofontos Str., 105 57 Athens Tel.: +30 211 5006000 Fax: +30 210 3222929 Email:

04. ASSOCIATIONS Hellenic Union of Industries Consumers of Energy (UNICEN) 57, Ethnikis Antistaseos Str., 152 31 Halandri Tel.: +30 210-6861489 Fax: +30 210-6283496 Email: Hellenic Wind Energy Association (HWEA) ELETAEN 306, kifissias Ave., 1st Floor, 152 32 Athens Tel./Fax: +30 210-8081755 Email:


Public Gas Corporation S.A. (DEPA) 92, Marinou Antipa Ave., 141 21 Heraklion Tel: +30 210 2701000, Fax: +30 210 2701010 Email:

ASEA BROWN BOVERI S.A. (ABB) 13th klm National Road Athens-Lamia 144 52 Metamorfosi Tel.: +30 210-2891500, Fax: +30 210-2891599 Email:

Hellenic Transmission System Operator (DESMIE) 72 Kastoros Str.,185 45 Piraeus Tel.: +30 210-9466700, Fax: +30 210-9466766 Email:

Elpedison Energy 8-10, Sorou Str., Building C, 151 25 Marousi Tel.: +30 211-2117400, Fax: +30 210-3441255 Email:

Independent Power Transmission Operator (ADMIE) 89 Dyrrachiou Str., 104 43 Athens Tel.: +30 210-5192281, Fax: +30 210-5192504 Email:

Heron S.A. 85, Mesogion Ave., 115 26 Athens Tel.: +30 213-0333000, Fax: +30 210-6968690 Email:

M&M Gas 5-7, Patroklou Str., 151 25 Marousi Tel.: +30 210-68777300, Fax: +30 210-6877400 Email:

Mamidoil-Jetoil S.A. 27, Evrota & Kiphissou Str., 145 64 Kifissia Tel.: +30 210-8763100, Fax: +30 210-8055850 Email:

Protergia S.A. 8, Artemidos Str., 151 25 Marousi Tel.: +30 210-3448300, Fax: +30 210-3448471 Email:

Motor Oil Gas S.A. 12A, Herodou Attikou Str., 151 24 Maroussi Tel.: +30 210-8094000, Fax: +30 210-8094444 Email:

Public Power Corporation S.A. (DEH) 30, Halkokondili Str., 104 32 Athens Tel.: +30 210-5230301, Fax: +30 210-5237727 Email:

Revoil S.A. 5, Kapodistriou Str., 166 72 Vari Tel.: +30 210 8976000, Fax: +30 210 8972137 Email:

06. OIL & GAS Aegean S.A. 10, Akti Kondili Str., 185 45 Piraeus Tel.: +30 210-4586000, Fax: +30 210-4586241 Email: BP Elliniki S.A. Petroleum 26, Kifissias Av. & 2, Paradissou Str.,151 25 Marousi Tel.: +30 210-6887777, Fax: +30 210-6887697 Email: Copelouzos Group 209, Kifissias Avenue, 151 24 Marousi Tel.: +30 210-6141106-115, Fax: +30 210-6140371 Email: Coral S.A. 12A, Herodou Attikou Str., 151 24 Marousi Tel.: +30 210-9476000, Fax: +30 210-9476500 Email: Coral Gas (Hellas) 26-28, G. Averof Str., 142 32 Perissos Tel.: +30 210-9491000, Fax: +30 210-9407987 Email: Eko AEBE 8, Chimaras Str., 151 25 Marousi Tel.: +30 210-7705201, Fax: +30 210-7705847 Email: Elinoil S.A. 33, Pigon Str., 145 64 Kifissia Tel.: +30 210-6241500, Fax: +30 210-6241509 Email: Energean Oil & Gas 32, Kifissias Ave. Atrina Center, 151 25 Marousi Tel.: +30 210-8174200, Fax: +30 210-8174299 Email: EPA Attikis 11, Sof. Venizelou Ave. & Serron Str., 141 23 Lykovrisi Tel.: +30 210-3406000, Fax: +30 210-3406060 Email: Hellenic Fuels S.A. 8, Chimaras Str., 151 25 Marousi Tel.: +30 210-6887111, Fax: +30 210-6887100 Email: Hellenic Petroleum Group (ELPE) 8A, Chimaras Str., 151 25 Marousi Tel.: +30 210-6302000, Fax: +30 210-6302510 Email:

Trans Adriatic Pipeline AG Greece, Branch Athens Tower, 21st Floor, 2-4, Messogion Avenue 115 27 Athens Tel.: +30 210-7454613, Fax: +30 210-7454300 Email:

07. ALTERNATIVE ENERGY ABB 13th klm National Road Athinon-Lamias 144 52 Metamorfosi Tel.: +30 210-2891500, Fax: +30 210-2891599 Email: AID Engineering Ltd 17, Aithrias Str., Nea Kifissia 145 64 Athens Tel./ Fax: +30 210-8003784 Email: EDF EN Hellas 120 ,Vas. Sofias Avenue, 115 26 Athens Tel.: +30 210-6462079, Fax: +30 210-6431420 Email: ELECTROTECH Power Systems 81, Ypsilantou Str., 187 58 Keratsini Tel.: +30 210-4321398, Fax: +30 210-4321034 Email: Enteka 2, Tichis Str., 152 33 Chalandri Tel.: +30 210-6816803, Fax: +30 210-6816460 Email: Gamesa 9, Adrianiou Str., 115 25 Athens Tel.: +30 210-6753300, Fax: +30 210-6753305 Email: GEORYTHMIKI ATE 170, Ag. Dimitriou Str., 173 41 Agios Dimitrios Tel.: +30 210-9322234, +30 210-9322248 Fax: +30 210-9359210 Email: GREENTOP Energy Systems S.A. 1, Vas. Sofias Str., 151 24 Maroussi, Athens Tel.: +30 210-8128150, Fax: +30 210-8128160 Email: Krannich Solar GmbH & Co. KG Head Office: 40, Stadiou Str., Kalohori 570 09 Thessaloniki Tel.: +30 2310-751960, Fax: +30 2310-751540 Branch: 336 Syggrou Ave., Kallithea, 176 73 Athens Tel.: +30 210-9531040, Fax: +30 210-9531041 Email:

Robert Bosch S.A. 37, Erheias Str., 194 00 Koropi Tel.: +30 210-5701200 Fax: +30 210-5770080 Email: Schneider Electric Greece 19th klm National Road Athinon-Lamias 146 71 Nea Erithrea Tel.: +30 210-6295200, Fax: +30 210-6295210 Email: Terna Energy S.A. 85, Messogion Avenue, 115 26 Athens Tel.: +30 210-6968300 Fax: +30 210-6968096 Email:

08. LAW FIRMS Kelemenis & Co. Law Firm 5, Tsakalof Str., Melathron Centre, 106 73 Athens Tel.: +30 210-3612800, Fax: +30 210-3612820 Email: Metaxas Law 154, Asklipiou Str., 114 71 Athens Tel.: +30 210-3390748, Fax: +30 210-3390749 Email: Rokas International Law Firm 25 & 25A, Boukourestiou Str., 106 71 Athens Tel.: +30 210-3616816 Fax: +30 210-3615425 Email:,

9. CHAMBERS American-Hellenic Chamber of Commerce 109-111, Messoghion Ave., 115 26 Athens Tel.: +30 210-6993559 Fax: +30 210-6985686 Email: Greek-German Chamber 10-12, Dorileou Str., 115 21 Athens Tel.: +30 210-6419000, Fax: +30 210-6445175 Email: Athens Chamber of Commerce & Industry 6, Akadimias Str., 106 71 Athens Tel.: +30 210-3387104 Fax: +30 210-3622320 Email:


10. INDUSTRY Mytilineos Group 5-7, Patroklou Str., 151 25 Maroussi Tel.: +30 210-6877300 Fax: +30 210-6877400 Email: Hellenic Halyvourgia 86A, Othonos & Kokkota Str., 145 61 Kifissia Tel.: +30 210-6283400 Fax: +30 210-8015614 Email:


Allouminion Ellados 8, Artemidos Str., 151 25 Maroussi Tel.: +30 210-3693000 Fax: +30 210-3693108 Email: Metka Group 8, Artemidos Str., 151 25 Maroussi Tel.: +30 210-2709200 Fax: +30 210-2759528 Email:

Romanian Ministry of Environment and Climate Changes 12 Libertatii Avenue, Sector 5, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 408 9500 Email:

Romanian Black Sea Titleholders Association 169A, Floreasca Road, building A, office 2099, District 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 031 860 2357 Email:

Romanian Ministry of Regional Development 17 Apolodor Street, North side, Sector 5, Bucharest Tel.: +4 037 211 1409 Email:

Romanian Electricity Suppliers Association 7-9, Tudor Stefan Street, ap. 2, 011655, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 230 6031 Email:


Romanian Wind Energy Association 75-77 Buzesti St, 7th floor, office 34, District 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 0736 621 222 Email:

ACUE-Association of Energy Utilities Companies 2 Intrarea Amzei St, et. 1, ap. 2, District 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 230 0050 Email: AFEER-The Association of Electricity Suppliers in Romania 7-9, Tudor Stefan Street, 1st floor, ap 2, 011655, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 230 6031 Email:


APER-Romanian Energy Policy Association 13, 13 Septembrie Road, 050711, Sector 5, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 411 9829 Email:

KIMI S.A. Industrial Park of SHISTO 2nd Street, 2nd Building Block 18863 Perama, Greece Tel: +30 210-4004757 Fax: +30 210-4326399 Email:

CNR-CME-Romanian National Comitee of World Energy Council 1-3, Lacul Tei Avenue, 020371, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 037 282 1475 Email:

ROMANIA 01. GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS ANRE-National Energy Regulator 3, Constantin Nacu Street, 020995, Sector 2, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 327 8174 Email: Competition Council Romania 1, Piata Presei Libere, building D1, 013701, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 318 1198 Email: National Agency for Mineral Resources 59, Dacia Blvd, 010407 District 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 317 0018 Email: Nuclear Agency & Radioactive Waste 21-25 Mendeleev Str., 010362, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 316 8001 Email: Romanian Government 1 Victoriei Square, 011791, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 314 3400 Email: Romanian Ministry of Economy 152 Victoriei Avenue, 010096, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 202 5426 Email:

CRE-Romanian Energy Center 6 Sofia St, 011838, District 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 795 3020 Email: EURISC Romania 82-84 Mihai Eminescu Street, B entrance, ap. 19, Sector 2, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 212 2102 Email: Foreign Investors Council Romania 11 Ion Campineanu Street, 3rd floor, Sector 1, 010031, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 222 1931 Email: Greenpeace CEE Romania 176 Calea Serban Voda, 040214, District 4, Bucharest Tel.: +4 031 435 5743 Email: Petroleum Club of Romania 38, Dragos Voda Street, ap. 1, 020747, Sector 2, Bucharest Tel.: +4 031 102 0605 Email: Romania Energy Center 319 Calarasilor Road, 030622, Sector 3, Bucharest Tel.: +4 031 432 8737 Email: Romania Photovoltaic Industry Association 58-60, Gheorghe Polizu Street, Sector 1, Bucharest Email:

03. ENERGY COMPANIES CEZ Romania 2B, Ion Ionescu de la Brad Street, 1st floor, 013813, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel: +4 021 269 2566 Email: E.ON Romania 42 Pandurilor Blvd, floor 6, office 6001, 540554, Targu Mures, Mures County Tel.: +4 0265 200 366 Email: Electrica Furnizare S.A. 1A, Stefan cel Mare Road, 011736, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 037 244 2192 Email: Enel Romania 41-42 Ion Mihalache Bd., District 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 037 243 6436 Email: ENGIE Romania 4-6 Marasesti Avenue, 040254, District 4, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 9336 Email: Hidroelectrica S.A. 15-17 Ion Mihalache Avenue, 011171, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 303 2500 Email: Nuclearelectrica S.A. 65, Polona Street, 010505, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 203 8200 Email: Termoelectrica S.A. 1-3, Lacul Tei Avenue, Sector 2, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 303 7305 Email: Transelectrica 2-4, Olteni Street, 030786, Sector 3, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 303 5822 Email: Verbund Romania 8 Tudor Arghezi St, Et. 7, 020945, District 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 301 6005 Email:

Vestas Romania 11-15, Tipografilor Str., Building B3, 013714 Bucharest Tel.: +4 031 403 3099 Email:

ICME ECAB SA 42, Drumul intre Tarlale Street, 032982, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 209 0111 Email:

Romanian Academy 125, Victoriei Road, 010071, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 212 8651 Email:

04. OIL & GAS

RIG Service SA 18, Marc Aureliu Street, nr. 18, 900744, Constanta Tel.: +4 0241 586 406 Email:

Valahia University 2 Carol I Blvd, 130024, Targoviste, Dambovita County Tel.: +4 0245 206 101 Email:

Black Sea Oil & Gas 175 Calea Floreasca, 10th floor, District 1, 014459, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 231 3256 Email: Exxon Mobil Romania 169A, Floreasca Road, building A, 014472, Sector 1, Bucharest GSP-Petroleum Services Group Constanta Port, Berth 34, 900900, Constanta County Tel.: +4 024 155 5255 Email: Lukoil Romania 28-36, Nordului Road, District 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 227 2106 Email: MOL Romania 4-6 Daniel Danielopolu Avenue, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 204 8500 OMV Petrom 22, Coralilor Str., Petrom City, Sector 1, 013329 Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 402 2201 Email: PETROTEL - LUKOIL S.A. 235, Mihai Bravu Street, Ploiesti, Prahova County Tel.: +4 0244 504 000 Email: Rompetrol 3-5, Presei Libere Square, City Gate Building, Northern Tower, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 303 0800 Email: Transgaz 1 Constantin Motas Square, 551130, Medias, Sibiu County Tel.: +4 026 980 3333 Email: Upetrom 1 Mai 1, 1 Decembrie 1918 Square, 100543, Ploiesti, Prahova County Tel.: +4 021 308 0200 Email:

05. Equipment and Maintenance Aggreko 7A Centura Road , Tunari, 077180, Ilfov Tel.: +4 075 222 5985 Email: General Electric Romania 169A Floreasca Street, 014472, District 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 037 207 4541 Email:

Romenergo 175 Floreasca Road, District 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 233 0771 Email: Schneider Electric Romania 4 Gara Herastrau St, District 2, 020334, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 203 0606 Email: Siemens Romania 24, Preciziei Street, West Gate Park, Building H3, 062204, Sector 6, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 629 6400 Email:

08. PR COMPANIES Action Global Communications 35 Alexandru Constantinescu Str., Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 224 2270 Email: GMP PR 19 Leonida St, District 2, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 210 7777 Email:

06. Law FIrMs

Golin 89-97 Grigore Alexandrescu St, District 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 301 0051 Email:

Biris Goran 47 Aviatorilor Blvd, 011853, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 260 0710 Email:

Grayling PR 9, Maltopol Street, 011047, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 301 0051 Email:

CMS Cameron McKenna 11-15 Tipografilor Str., B3-B4, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 407 3800 Email:

OMD 6 Pictor G.D. Mirea St,District 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 222 1091 Email:

IK Rokas&Partners 45, Polona Street, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 411 7405 Email:

Premium PR 23 Eroilor Sanitari Av., 050471, Sector 5, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 411 0152 Email:

Musat & Associates 43, Aviatorilor Avenue, 011853, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 202 5900, Email: NNDKP 201 Barbu Vacarescu St,18th Floor, 020276, District 2, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 201 1200 Email: Serban&Musneci Associates 3 Pictor Ion Negulici St, 011941, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 222 4478 Email: Wolf Theiss 58-60 Gheorghe Polizu Str. 011062, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 308 8100 Email:

07. EDUCATION INSTITUTES Oil&Gas University Ploiesti 39, Bucuresti Ave. 100680, Ploiesti, Prahova County Tel.: +4 0244 573 171 Email:

The Group 3, Praga Street, 011801, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 206 2200 Email: V+O Communication 40 Hristache Pitarul Str., 011626, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 231 9195 Email:

09. EmbassIES Canadian Embassy in Romania 1-3, Tuberozelor Street, 011411, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 307 5000 Email: Greek Embassy in Romania-Commercial Office 1-3, Pache Protopopescu Avenue, 021403, Sector 2, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 210 0748 Email: USA Embassy in Romania 4-6, Dr. Liviu Librescu Str., 015118, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 200 3300 Email:





Erste Group Banca Comerciala Romana 5 Regina Elisabeta Ave, 030016, Sector 3, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 407 4200 Email:

Arelco Power 11 Pitarul Hristache St, District 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 231 7056 Email:

ING Bank Romania 48, Iancu de Hunedoara Ave, 011745, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 222 1600 Email:

Repower 19-21 Primaverii Blvd, 011972, District 1, Bucharest Email: Tel.: +4 021 335 0935

International Finance Corporation (IFC) 31, Vasile Lascar Street, UTI building, 020491, Sector 2, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 201 0311 Email:

Tinmar 246C Calea Floreasca, District 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 031 9797 Email:

Piraeus Bank Romania 29-31 Nicolae Titulescu Road, District 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 303 6969 Email:

Transenergo Com 90 Calea 13 Septembrie, 050726, District 5, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 403 4945 Email:

The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) 56-60, Iancu de Hunedoara Avenue, Metropolis Center, West Wing, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 202 7100


EPS Snabdevanje 2, Carice Milice Street, Belgrade Tel: +381 11 6556 747, Fax: + 381 11 655 6757 Email:

ISPE-Institute for Studies and Power Engineering 1-3, Lacul Tei Avenue, 20371, Sector 2, Bucharest Tel.: +4 037 282 1076 Email:

Hidroelektrane Derdap 1, Trg kralja Petra Street, Kladovo Tel: + 381 19 801 651, Fax: + 381 19 801 659 Email:


HIP Petrohemija 82, Spoljnostarcevacka Street, Pancevo Tel: +381 13 307 000, Fax: +381 13 310 207 Email:

Agency for Environmental Protection 27a Ruze Jovanovica, Belgrade Tel: +381 11 2861 065, Fax: +381 11 2861 077 Email:

JP Srbijagas 12, Narodnog fronta Street, Novi Sad Tel: +381 21 481 2703, Fax: +381 21 481 1305 Email:

Commission for Protection of Competition 7 Kneginje Zorke Street, Belgrade Tel: +381 11 381 1911, Fax: +381 11 381 1936 Email:


The European Investment Bank (EIB) 31, Vasile Lascar Str., 020492, Sector 2, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 208 6400 Email:

11. AUDIT Deloitte Romania 4-8, Nicolae Titulescu Road, Est entrance, 011141, District 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 222 1661 Email: Ernst & Young 15-17 Ion Mihalache Blvd, 011171, District 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 402 4000 Email: KPMG 69-71, Bucharest-Ploiesti Road, Victoria Business Park DN1, 013685, Sector 1, Bucharest Tel.: +4 0372 377 800 Email:

12. Chambers of commerce Bucharest Chamber of Commerce and Industry CCIB 2 Octavian Goga Avenue, 030982, Sector 3, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 318 2573 Email: Constanta Chamber of Commerce 185A, Alex. Lapusneanu Ave, 900457, Constanta Tel.: +4 024 161 9854 Email:

Energy Agency of the Republic of Serbia 5 / V Terazije Street, Belgrade Tel: +381 11 3033 829, Fax: +381 11 3225 780 Email: Ministry of Mining and Energy 22-26 Nemanjina Street, Belgrade Tel: +381 11 3604-403 Fax: +381 11 3616-603 Email:

02. ENERGY COMPANIES Centar 7, Slobode Street, Kragujevac Tel: + 381 34 37 00 83, Fax: + 381 34 37 01 56 Email:

13. IMF

Drinsko-Limske Hidroelektrane 1, Trg Dusana Jerkovica Street, Bajina Basta Tel: + 381 31 8636 59, Fax: + 381 31 8643 54 Email:

International Monetary Fund 7, Halelor Street, 030118, Sector 3, Bucharest Tel.: +4 021 311 5833 Email:

Elektromreza Srbije 11, Kneza Milosa Street, Belgrade Tel: +381 11 3330 700, Fax: + 381 11 32 39 908 Email:

Elektrovojvodina 100, Oslobodenja Boulevard, Novi Sad Tel: + 381 21 527 030, Fax: + 381 21 422 847 Email: Elektrodistribucija Beograd 1-3, Masarikova Street, Belgrade Tel: + 381 11 3616 706, Fax: + 381 11 3616 641 Email: Elektrosrbija 5, Dimitrija Tucovica Street, Kraljevo Tel: + 381 36 3 21 686, Fax: + 381 36 3 21 958 Email: EPS Obnovljivi Izvori 2, Carice Milice Street, Belgrade Tel: + 381 11 2024 828, Fax: + 381 11 2629 489 Email:

Continental Wind Serbia 23, Resavska Street, Belgrade Tel: +381 11 785 0020 Email: Electrawinds-S 6, Vladimira Popovica Street, Belgrade Tel: +381 11 660 0955 Energo Green 115E, Mihajla Pupino Boulevard, Belgrade Tel: +381 11 353 9522 Email: Vestas Central Europe 6, Mihaila Pupina Boulevard, Belgrade Tel: +49 4841 971 722

04. LAW FIRMS Karanovic & Nikolic 23, Resavska Street, Belgrade Tel: +381 11 3094 200, Fax: +381 11 3094 223 Email: Petrikic & Partneri in cooperation with CMS Reich-Rohrwig Hainz 3, Cincar Janka Street, Belgrade Tel.: +381 11 3208900, Fax: +381 11 3208930 Email:

Ew 17  
Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you