4th TWG 1 meeting Thursday 21 October 2010

Transcription

1 4th TWG 1 meeting Thursday 21 October 2010 Venue : Pantai Gapura Hotel, Makassar Present : Mr Suhardi, Mrs Dewt, ESDM Jateng Mr Iman Budi Santoso, ETCERE Mr Oetomo, ITB Mrs Rosmaliati, NTB Mrs Libertina, Papua Mr Soeharwinto, North Sumatra Mr Joko, Mr Imam Fauzi, Mr Hendra, JaTeng Mr Rahmat, Mr Pamungkas Jutta, Yogya Mr Nico, Mr Koen, ECN Agenda : Opening and introduction by ECN Presentation by MEMR- Pusdatin on the latest developments National Energy Policy and on the integration of national and regional energy policies 1

2 The Pusdatin will present the latest developments regarding the National Energy Policy and will explain how national and regional energy policies can be better integrated Presentation by the regional teams of progress achieved since last meeting in May 2010 in Bali (30 minutes each) During the last meeting in April it was agreed that the regional teams will work on the energy balances 2006, on deliverable no 21 and on the LEAP model. In this session each team will report on the progress achieved regarding these activities Development of work plan for the coming six months The next TWG I meeting probably will take place in February 2011 and we need to agree on the work plan for the coming months and on how the communication can best take place end Integration of the results of TWG I,II,III,IV and V The regional teams are currently working in five different working groups on five different energy policy-related topics. However, at the end of day the analysis and results of all five working groups must be integrated to be able to produce the regional energy outlook. In this session some first thoughts on how this integration could be brought about will be presented and discussed. Mr Koen opened the meeting at 09h00 with an introduction about the tasks and schedule of TWG 1 as agreed in the previous TWG meeting, held in May in Bali. Two major topics should be discussed now : the finalisation of the energy profile 2006 and the workplan for the coming period. In addition a further outlook towards the ultimate purpose of CASINDO, namely the integration of the renewable Energy and Efficiency master plan into the regional energy scenario (KED). Due to misunderstanding within the MEMR, nobody of Pusdatin was present to deliver the first agenda item as requested. The foreseen presentation was given by Mr Catur in abbreviated from during the mid-term evaluation meeting on Monday 18 October Fortunately, Mr Oetomo kindly accepted the invitation to replace Pusdatin and to present this presentation on the link between national and regional energy planning. He enlighted the presentation with his own remarks and comments. So is the announced energy efficiency programme (decree No ) not yet clear, especially on how to calculate and to measure energy efficiency. Mr Joko added that in this decree companies with an annual consumption of more than 6000 BOE (barrel of oil equivalent) so only very large industry - are required to have an energy manager an d to 2

3 perform an energy audit. However, there is no enforcement : if non-performing, the company receives a letter from the government, if still nothing happens, they are named and shamed in a local newspaper. If this still not incites them into action, the company could see their energy supply reduced (although it is not clear how this can be achieved). Regarding the compilation of RUEN and RUED, it is not yet cleat if this will be on an annual basis or on a 5-year basis. Mr Oetomo expects this to be on a 5-year basis because annually has a too short turn-over time, although the electricity planning occurs on an annual basis. He expects the cycle to be : Kabupaten/kota RUED (March) Regional RUED (July) National RUEN (October) The first cycles could only see interaction between national and regional level. The RUED is better decreed by the head of the regional regulator, and not by the regional regulator (Perda). Long term planning should be aimed at developing a vison, for mif term planning, the BUKU should be followed. BUKU consist of three volumes: I general, II national government, III regional government. This latter contains regional GRDP growth rate expectations for 2010 and Although a range is given, this information is relevant for the regional teams. Mr Oetomo will send around this BUKU III. Also the biofuel targets in volume III are still the same as the ones used in CAREPI. For the crash programmes, the 1 st one only considers coal and BUKU III contains an overview of what is planned/licenced/granted, other plans are currently postponed. The 2 nd crash programme considers coal, gas and geothermal. Next the teams presented the progress made since the previous TWG meeting of May Mr Rahmat gave an overview of the achievments in Yogya. They have finished the 2006 energy outlook, as well as the report D21 (English version).they plan to have the Bahasa Indonesian version ready by November Since they finished 2006, they will also start on 2007 and/or 2008 energy profile. Mr Joko asked if the Central Java could receive the Yogya D21 report as an example for their own report to come. Mrs Libertina requested how changes or revised numbers were obtained. Mr Rahmat replied that this was done through discussion and collaboration with the stakeholders (like Pertamina).Although Mr Oetomo would like to see more self-explaining tables and less text in the reporting, ECN is convinced that for the target readers, namely the regional energy policy stakeholders, a descriptive and explanatory report with main graphs and/or tables is more relevant than a more technical 3

4 report with abundant tables. Of course, the detailed tables should be provided as an annex in the report. Next, Mr Joko and Mr Imam Fauzi presented the energy outlook for Central Java. A discussion originated when they presented the population numbers for JaTeng, in 2006 the number is considerably lower than in Mr Oetomo suggested that this could be related on how BPS publishes the population statistics : they do a 10-yearly detailed and complete survey (so e.g. in 2000) from that value they provide projections. Every 5 year (e.g. 2005) they perform a limited intermediate survey with which they adjust the projections for year after the survey year. So population before and after such an intermediate survey could be different. However in JaTeng, the BPS yearbook 2009 provides these 2005 and 2006 numbers. Even 2007 is published and : 2005>2006<2007 and 2007<2005. Because there seems to be no indication that these numbers are not correct, they will be maintained. Another issue for the team is that 2005 final fuel consumption is based on BPS data and 2006 is based on Pertamina data. Since this could inconsistencies over time, it has to be resolved. Mr Suhardi of the DINAS proposes that they will send a letter to Pertamina to request the 2005 data in the same format as the 2006 data. The team plans to finalise the report D21 in both English and Bahasa Indoenesia by November In December they will work on the 2007/8 profile and in January- February on the update of the LEAP model. Mrs Rosmaliati gave an update of the work done in NTB. The input data for the profile are almost complete, for transport and Pertamina data there are some inconsistencies, but these have been discussed with the stakeholders. She expects to wrap the energy profile 2006 up by end of November, and the report in December. Also the LEAP models will be updated in December. The preparation of the 2007 and 2008 could well run in parallel. She is not sure that a revision for the 2005 data will be needed, it depends om further discussion on GRDP and on the delivery of 2006 data by Pertamina. Mr Soeharwinto in absence of Mr Yulianta gave a short overview of the progress in North Sumatra. They still lack a formal established regional energy forum, so there is not yet a firm commitment of the intended stakeholders. That is the background why they still lack data from PLN and oil from Pertamina. He hopes to be able to finish the profile 2006 by mid-december and work on LEAP afterwards. He also presented the draft regional energy forum set-up document, it is by function not on name, Only 9 of the 32 regencies are represented since not all have a local energy office. NGO s are not ye included. Mrs Rosmaliati shared the NTB experience that previously they had the Dinas energy presiding the energy forum, but because there are now more Dinas represented, they are an equal hierarchial level. That is why they have now BAPPEDAS presiding the forum and Dinas energy acts as the forum s secretary. 4

5 Currently in North Sumatra, BAPPEDAS is vise chairman of the forum. Mr Joko adds that besides the forum set-up, there should also be a document for the technical team, including persons from outside the university like from PLN or Dinas energy. Mr Soeharwinto explains that the governor first needs to sign the forum document, afterwards the head of Dinas energy can sign the technical team composition document. Mrs Libertina presented the situation for the energy profile in Papua. They still have not a complete data set, data from Pertamina is missing. In order to obtain this, she finds it difficult to put pressure on the Dinas or Pertamina to receive the data. Mrs Rosmaliati confirmed that in NTB she had the same problem, the Pertamina office for NTB is located in Surabaya (East Java) (for Papua it is in Makassar). Through good contacts, Mrs Rosmaliati obtained form the local Pertamina person the name of the responsible in the regional office in Surabaya. So by both formal contacts (letter form Dinas) she uses this contact informally to obtain data. Almost all of the teams present agreed that from their experience - good contacts with the Dinas are indispensable, so they advice to invite the Dinas to TWG 1 meetings/discussions in order to involve them more in the work. In the afternoon Mr Koen presented the proposed plan of work. All teams could agree with it. The original plan was scheduled as follows : Deliverables TWG 1 overview - D21 report (in Bahasa Indonesia and in English) on energy profile 2006 (promised March 2010 (Papua June 2010) - D22 report (in Bahasa Indonesia and in English) on energy profile 2007 (promised January 2011, Papua February 2011) Activities TWG 1 overview - Develop regional energy policy scenarios (April 2010) - Collect energy investment plans; Model regional energy scenarios in LEAP (September 2010) - Start evaluation energy investment plans (November 2010) - Discuss and formulate regional energy plans; Update LEAP with energy profile data 2006/7/8 (January 2011) - Updated regional energy scenarios in LEAP (February 2011) - Discuss draft regional energy scenario outcomes in FGD/REF (March 2011) Of course, reality looks different, except for Yogya, all teams are still working on the 2006 energy profile. 5

6 Therefore it is needed to step up the efforts in order to catch with the delays since the work on the profiles needs to end soon. The main reason is that in 2011 a tremendous a lot of work needs to be done on the modelling and scenario analysis, including to report writing of the regional energy outlook. Most teams know from the CAREPI project that this is a intense and time consuming process, so in order to achieve the CASINDO objective (regional energy outlook by end of 2011), concentration on the modeling and scenario activities is necessary. These must start early 2001, so by the next TWG the latest. This also means that work on the profiles must be ready before February Summarised the plan looks as follows - ALL teams send in any available material as soon as possible after 4 th TWG meeting to Koen (Oct-Nov 2010). - Mr Oetomo visits USU, UNRAM and UNCEN early December 2010 to finish energy outlook day visit - teams send issues to discuss to Oetomo & Koen by end of November - Mr Joko works with Mr Koen during his stay in Eindhoven to finish energy outlook 2006, D21 and work on 2007/8 (Nov 2010) - ALL teams finish with D21 report in December > end December final draft D21 to Koen (X-mas present) - ALL teams start/continue in parallel with 2007 energy profile data (Nov-Dec 2010) - Mr Koen will visit teams in January 2011 issues to be discussed have to be send to Koen 1 week before (preparation) Proposals, suggestions, options for travel schedule : - 1 Medan-Mataram-Yayapura (and Yogya and JaTeng join at choice) - 2 central location (Bandung,.) and all teams visit consecutively - 3??? - Profiles and reports 2006/7/8 ready by January meeting - January-February : update LEAP models with energy profile data 2006/7/8 - TWG meeting February : discussion on status LEAP models and on regional energy scenarios set up/ data needs 6

7 For the January visit, a slight preference was given by the teams to have the meeting at a central location, Jakarta or Denpassar were mentioned. However, there are more advantages to have a team visit : more persons can attend the meeting, reduced time constraint on the regional team (no need for travel), all material at hand - if needed, closer follow up of universities. Mr Koen will work out a more detailed proposal depending his own availability and travel possibilities and send this around by mid November. Next the discussion on integration of the energy planning work, the RE and EE work was initiated by Mr Koen. He proposed some ideas about integration of RE and EE in the regional models. The proposal is to stick to the two scenarios developed in CAREPI : KEN (national) and KED (regional) and update those. Updating requires less work than developing new scenarios. Based on KED, a RE and an EE scenario will be included. Therefore however, information from TWG II (RE) and TWG III (EE) is needed. It is assumed that RE will play on the supply side whereas EE will be on the demand side. KEN KED RE EE There are some implications about the EE scenario, it would mean that the model structure has to move away from fuel intensity based like in CAREPI towards end use base. The teams should not be too ambitious, it will not be possible to cover all sectors and end uses. Close cooperation with TWG III is needed. TWG III focuses on households in all regions, so this would be the exemplary sector. And also now we have intensities per persons, which should become intensities per household. This would mean that the model tree structure will become more extended: Now in Households : fuel intensity Urban kerosine electricity LPG xxx Income category I x x x x Income category II x x x x Income category III x x x x Income category IV x x x x Rural kerosine electricity LPG xxx Income category I x x x x Income category II x x x x Income category III x x x x Income category IV x x x x 7

8 Mr Oetomo : 2 x 4 tables Proposed : end uses Urban kerosine electricity LPG xxx Income category I Cooking x x x Lighting x x Electric appliances x Mr Oetomo : 2 x 4 x 3 tables Mr Koen will see if he can make up an example based on each regions LEAP model assuming some default parameters. For RE, costs are the most important issues, next to potentials. By the next TWG meeting in February, the teams agreed to : - for EE : explore how to change the household model structure from intensities to end uses, look for the data to do so : appliances, fuel use; - for RE : check the potentials of RE resources in the region, find costs on RE technologies Next TWG, a special session where the teams will look into the implications of end uses as well as entering costs data in LEAP. Annexes - presentation TWG 1 meeting ECN - team presentations of : o Yogya o JaTeng o SumUt o NTB - presentation Pusdatin 18 October