www.ieo.pl

Session 3a

Challenges in using EU structural funds for energy projects: RES case in PL

Chair introduction

Second European Conference of Municipal Energy ManagersWarsaw, 5-6 October 2006

Grzegorz WIŚNIEWSKIgwisniewski@ieo.pl

Institute for Renewable Energy (EC BREC/IEO) Warszawa, Poland

www.ieo.pl

Disposed of comunity institutions

Disposed of domestic institutions

Importance of EU support

LOW SCALE OF PRODUCTION

HIGH COSTS

Investments

R &D

LEGISLATIONGRANTS:- STRUCTURAL AID

IEE6 FP

Development Strategy for RE sector: public support of

228 Mio PLN/a.(10 years, until 2010)

Renewable energy technologies

If only 1% of Structural Funds for investments in RE sector: community support of

app. 300 Mio PLN(2004-2006)

www.ieo.pl

EU pre-accession programs 2001-2004 – first experiences in Poland

2. SAPARD (Scheme 3.5) – renewable energy-related projects, local communities, up to 50% of eligible costs (max. 420 000 PLN=app. 100 000 EUR). Total aid granted 4,8 Mio PLN=app. 1,15Mio EUR

3. ISPA (Environmental Protection) – alternative energy-related projects (above 50 MW, above 50 Mio EUR), up to 75% of eligible costs. Neither RES project supported.

1. PHARE (Infrastructure) – energy infrastructure, up to 75% of investment value. Examples: geothermal heating plants in Pyrzyce municipality and Podhale region

Geothermal7%

Geotherm&Solar

7%

Solar28%

Biomass58%

34%

19%

15%

14%

9%

7%

2%

www.ieo.pl

Sustainable energy in national development program 2004-2006

National strategic documents

National Development Plan (NDP)

Community Support Framework (CSF)

Hum

an R

esources

Com

petitiveness 2

Regional

Develop

men

t 3

Technical support

Agriculture 1

Fisheries

Transport

OP Supplements

Community Iniciatives

Equ

alIn

terr

eg

EAGGF ERDFCohesion Fund

En

viro

nm

ent

Tra

nspo

rt

Strategy for

Cohesion Fund

!) SPO-ROL- SOP Restructuring and modernisation of food sector and development of rural areas

2) SPO-WKP - SOP Economy Competitiveness Growth

3) ZPORR - Integrated Regional Operational Programme

www.ieo.pl

Technologies and beneficiaries of RES utilisation

Beneficiaries*Renewable Energy Technologies, aid - % of eligible costs Distribution

Biogas Biomass Geothermal Sun Wind Water Grid

Farmers30-50 30-50

Local municipalities 30-50 30-50 30-50 30-50 30-50 30-50 30-50

Governmental institutions 30-50 30-50 30-50 30-50 30-50 30-50 30-50

Municipal companies

Other public entities 30-50 30-50 30-50 30-50 30-50 30-50 30-50

NGOs30-50 30-50 30-50 30-50 30-50 30-50 30-50

SMEs30-65 30-65 30-65 30-65 30-65 30-65 30-65

Other private entities

30-50 30-50 30-50 30-50 30-50 30-50 30-50 30-50 30-50 30-50

* One beneficiary may be supported only within one Operating Program

OP Agriculture- beneficiaries limited to farmers and companies operating in agriculture sector-max. aid: 80000–100000 PLN (app. 20000-30000 EUR)

OP Competitiveness

- enterprises operating in agriculture sector are excluded from group of beneficiaries

OP Regional Development

- projects below 10 Mio EURCohesion Fund Strategy

- projects above 10 Mio EUR

www.ieo.pl

Del

ay in

ope

nin

g of

the

call

s fo

r pr

opos

als

Oth

er te

chno

logi

es, n

ot in

clud

ed

to R

ES,

may

be

supp

orte

d

Dif

ficu

lt to

gau

ge w

heth

er

assi

stan

ce is

use

d in

fu

ll e

xten

t an

d al

ong

wit

h it

s pu

rpos

e

Lac

k of

spe

cifi

ed b

udg

et f

or R

ES

&

RU

E,

L

ack

of tr

ansp

aren

ce,

D

iffu

sed

resp

onsi

bili

ty

Alr

eady

com

peti

tive

ene

rgy

tech

nolo

gies

wil

l be

supp

orte

d

Problems and difficulties with implementation of NDP 2004-2006 in Poland(1)

„MA

RK

ET

-OR

IEN

TE

D”

ND

P 2

004-

2006

INC

OH

ER

EN

T A

PP

RO

AC

H t

owar

ds

RE

S& R

UE

– 3

Ope

rati

ng P

rogr

ams,

sev

eral

Im

plem

enti

ng I

nsti

tuti

ons

Lac

k o

f Q

UA

NT

IFIA

BL

E in

dica

tors

for

R

ES,

e.g

. MW

, num

ber

of in

stal

lati

ons,

etc

.IN

CO

HE

RE

NT

DE

FIN

ITIO

NS

of

RE

S (u

ncon

vent

iona

l, al

tern

ativ

e, r

enew

able

sou

rces

)D

EL

AY

in s

tate

aid

not

ific

atio

n to

Eur

opea

n C

omm

issi

on

www.ieo.pl

See

abov

eL

ess

appl

icat

ions

for

fina

ncia

l ai

d fo

r R

ES

than

pos

sibl

e,

Low

er q

ual

ity

of a

ppli

cati

ons

Insu

ffic

ien

t in

cen

tive

to s

tim

ulat

e in

vest

men

ts in

bio

mas

s an

d bi

ogas

Lim

ited

RE

S m

arke

t de

velo

pmen

t (sm

all s

cale

in

stal

lati

ons

excl

uded

)

Problems and difficulties with implementation of NDP 2004-2006 in Poland (2)

Ass

ista

nce

for

inst

alla

tion

s A

BO

VE

50

MW

- O

P C

ompe

titi

vene

ss, C

ohes

ion

Fun

d S

trat

egy

LO

W L

EV

EL

of

assi

stan

ce (

max

. app

. 20

000

– 30

000

EU

R)

- O

P A

gric

ultu

reP

OO

R I

NF

OR

MA

TIO

N f

or p

oten

tial

in

vest

ors

LO

W U

SAG

E o

f pr

e-ac

cess

ion

aid,

IN

EX

PE

RIE

NC

E o

f in

vest

ors

www.ieo.pl

Programmes and Instruments

Eligibility Priorities Allocations

New round of EUCohesion Policy

2007-2013

3 Objectives

EUR 307.6 bn(0.37% of EU-GNI)

1. Convergence objective 81.7% (EUR 251.33 bn)

Regional and nationalprogrammes ERDFESF

Cohesion Fundincluding phasing-out

Regions with a GDP/head75% of average EU25

Statistical effect:Regions with a GDP/head

75% of EU15 and >75% in EU25

Member StatesGNI/head 90% EU25 average

•innovation;•environment/ risk prevention; •accessibility; •infrastructure; •human resources; •administrative capacity

•transport (TENs); •sustainable transport; •environment; •renewable energy

57.6% EUR 177.29 bn

4.1%EUR 12.52 bn

20.0%EUR 61.42 bn

2. Regional competitiveness and employment objective 15.8% (EUR 48.79 bn.)

Regional programmes (ERDF) and national programmes(ESF)

Member States suggest a list of

regions (NUTS I or II)

"Phasing-in"Regions covered by objec-

tive 1 beween 2000-06 and not covered by theconvergence objective

•Innovation•environment/risk prevention•accessibility•European Employment Strategy

15.5%EUR 38.4 bn

3.4%EUR 10.38 bn

3. European territorial co-operation objective 2.44% (EUR 7.5 bn.)

Cross-border and transnational

programmes andnetworking (ERDF)

Border regions and greater regions of

transnational co-operation

•innovation;•environment/ risk prevention; •accessibility•culture, education

of which:77.6% cross-border18.5% transnational 3.9% interregional + ENPI

www.ieo.pl

RES related EU budged 2007-2013 (including ERDF and Cohesion Found) accompanied by required state and

private financing – a general national framework for Poland

Operational programme

title

RES related priorities/activities

Projects types

(above Euro 5 mln)

Available funds: EU/national/private contributions,

[mln Euro]

“Infrastructure and environment

Priority 10 “Energy infrastructure friendly to environment”, action: 10.2 “Increased generation of energy from RES” (2 others priorities are related for RUE and infrastructure)

•biomass electricity up to 10 MWe •biomass and geothermal CHP•green heat production•biofuels (biodiesel) production•RETS (all type) equipment production facilities

334,2/59/219

“Innovative economy”

Priority 4 “Investment in innovative technologies and products” (including especially those having positive impact on environment)

•RTD•Development and implementation of know-how.•Investment in modern (national scale at least) research and innovation•Investment support for industrial and private research and development centres

2 838/425/0

www.ieo.pl

Some questions and themes for discussion

1. Is the scope and budged for RES and RUE clearly defined by the governments, at the level of „priority & action” in the national operational programmes and regional programmes?

2. Does the scope of action/priority result from generic national/regional RES/RUE strategy and encompass relevant implementation programme or this is just a „collection of particular wishes”?

3. What is the minimum size of eligible projects: are realy small scale projects (and SMEs) supported more than large scale projects (large companies)?

4. Is there a priority for innovative energy technologies (e.g decentralised systems) or it is support for already existed energy markets?

5. Were there local energy actors involved in the priories development process and in consultation?