Home >> Our Work >> Projects >> Kosova e Re lignite power plant, Kosovo

Kosova e Re lignite power plant, Kosovo


The Kosovo A power plant near Prishtina (Original image by Andreas Welch - Creative Commons)

Plans to build a new coal plant close to capital Pristina have been around for over a decade, starting out as a planned 2000 MW unit that would turn the country into the leading energy exporter for the Balkans. Yet, lack of investors and resistance to a massive lignite project in a country that already has the highest single point-source of carbon emissions in Europe have gradually diminished ambitions.

Today, Kosova e Re is planned to have a capacity of 600 MW, costing around USD 2 billion, and it is being heavily promoted by the World Bank and by the United States. Since Kosovo became a member of the EBRD in December 2012 the bank has also indicated its interest in the project. In 2013 both banks committed to virtually halt financing for coal and it remains to be seen how they can justify treating Kosovo as an exception.

Civil society groups in Kosovo, led by the Kosovo Civil Society Consortium for Sustainable Development (KOSID) oppose the construction of a new power plant for the following reasons:

1. It is unnecessary. Reducing electricity losses and investing in efficiency and alternatives are cheaper and create more jobs.

While the plant is being depicted as necessary to ensure the country’s energy security, 35 percent of electricity is lost in distribution (of which around 17 percent are technical and a result of an old grid and the other are commercial losses, i.e. theft), and much more is lost as a result of lack of energy efficiency measures in buildings.

Daniel Kammen, Professor at the University of California in Berkeley and former World Bank 'Clean Energy Czar' has shown (pdf) that a range of alternatives exists to meet present supply constraints all at a lower cost than constructing a proposed 600 MW coal plant. The options include energy efficiency measures, combinations of solar PV, wind, hydropower and biomass, and the introduction of natural gas.

While some of the options shown may be more acceptable than others from an environmental or geopolitical point of view, the study illustrates the fact that alternatives have not been adequately studied by the Kosovo government and World Bank.

2. High costs

Building Kosova e Re would require Kosovo consumers (or the government) to service over a billion euro in debt (Source (pdf)) at a time when they are also servicing debt for improvements in the Sibovc mine, Kosovo’s wasteful transmission and distribution systems, and refurbishment of Kosovo B.

Concerns about costs have been heightened by the Kosova e Re project only receiving a single bid, which diminishes the likelihood of the Government getting good value for money.

Indeed, local media reports suggest that the bidder, ContourGlobal, is asking for an internal rate of return of 25 percent, which is a very high profit indeed. This would be delivered through a long-term power purchase agreement, which would oblige the Kosovo Electricity Corporation to buy some or all of the electricity generated, and would limit its freedom to buy electricity from other sources, potentially raising prices even more than necessary for customers.

The long-term power purchase agreement is also likely to conflict with Energy Community Treaty rules, which oblige Kosovo to follow EU state aid legislation.

3. Damage to health

Kosovo currently has 835 early deaths per year and estimated direct costs of around EUR 100 million annually due to air pollution, of which the lignite plants are responsible for a substantial proportion. (Source: World Bank (pdf))

However, far from solving this problem, a new lignite plant would perpetuate the health risks from coal for several more decades. Due to the location where the Kosovo e Re plant would be built, it is likely that emissions will exceed EU ambient air quality standards, even if Kosovo B and Kosova e Re meet EU emission standards. No reliable air quality monitoring is taking place, so it is difficult to prove that air quality would be acceptable with a new plant.

4. Kosovo needs to increase renewables and energy efficiency and decrease CO2 emissions

By 2020, Kosovo has committed through the Energy Community to source 25 percent of overall energy from renewable sources and improve energy efficiency by 9 percent. And as the country is aiming to join the EU, it will have to adhere to ever stricter CO2 reduction targets (likely to be 80-95 percent for the EU as a whole by 2050). This one coal power plant alone will likely swallow up most of the country's carbon budget by 2050, leaving a choice between closing the plant earlier than planned or paying penalties.

5. Water shortage

Kosovo is already water-stressed and its water polluted, and a new plant would add to the problem. A paper by Bank Information Center and KOSID shows that the water modelling for the project miss out several factors including water use by the expanded open pit coal mining operations and conveyance of coal from the mine to the power plant, as well as the impact of a new plant on water pollution.

6. Resettlement and agricultural land shortages

A new power plant would require a new mine, and this will require resettlement of at least 7000 people. This is complicated by the fact that many of the people are farmers and need to be provided with adequate land to compensate for their lost livelihoods, and agricultural land is in very short supply in Kosovo.

This raises further questions about whether it is better to use scarce land for opening a new mine or feeding people. The resettlement that has occurred so far for mine expansion has been in breach of any known international standards for resettlement and an analysis by resettlement expert Ted Downing has shown that the new resettlement plans have already breached World Bank rules in their early design stages.


For more information contact

Visar Azemi, KOSID Co-ordinator
or
Pippa Gallop, Bankwatch Research Co-ordinator

Share:

Latest developments


 

Blog entry | November 14, 2016

Now is the time for southeast Europe to start an inclusive and just transition away from lignite, argues new Bankwatch research.

Press release | November 14, 2016

Promises for new jobs in south-east Europe’s coal sector are exaggerated, a new Bankwatch report reveals. Hardly any coal operations across the region are economically viable, and as a result many coal workers, especially in the mines, are set to lose their jobs, even if the plans for countless new power plants materialise. Governments, coal workers and their wider communities need to work together towards a just transition.

Blog entry | May 27, 2016

Last year in the EU, 12.8 GW of wind power capacity was installed – more than any other electricity generation source. This means that wind can now generate 11.4% of the EU electricity consumption in a normal wind year, according to Wind Europe. At the same time Belgium and Scotland have shut down their last coal plants, signalling the golden days of coal are far behind them.

Balkans, coal
Press release | May 25, 2016

Western Balkan countries are planning investments in wind power, but these are being heavily outweighed by their investments in coal plants, according to a CEE Bankwatch Network analysis launched today. The region’s governments are actively planning 2800 MW of new coal plants but allowing only around 1166 MW of wind power plants to be built.

Blog entry | March 16, 2016

While the Energy Community yesterday failed to consider more stringent air pollution rules for the Western Balkans, a new report quantifies the health costs of the region’s coal burning both within the region itself as well as in the neighbouring European Union.

Publications

Briefing | November 14, 2016

Coal is the single biggest contributor to global climate change. But governments and investors planning new coal capacities have a range of flimsy arguments why coal would be the best or the only alternative. This briefing busts a number of myths surrounding coal, such as "coal is cheap", "alleviates poverty" or "coal is clean".

Study | November 14, 2016

This report reveals how and why promises for new jobs in south-east Europe’s coal sector are exaggerated. Hardly any coal operations across the region are economically viable, and as a result many coal workers, especially in the mines, are set to lose their jobs, even if the plans for countless new power plants materialise. Governments, coal workers and their wider communities need to work together towards a just transition.

Available languages:

Briefing | May 25, 2016

All the Western Balkans countries have committed to increase their share of renewable energy by 2020 to reach between 25 and 40 percent of their energy mix, as part of their obligations under the Energy Community Treaty. Yet this is far from obvious when examining their investment plans for new power generation capacity. Governments are actively planning to build 2800 MW of new coal plants with construction cost of at least EUR 4.5 billion. In contrast, these countries are only planning to build around 1166 MW of wind power plants, at an estimated cost of EUR 1.89 billion.

Briefing | June 8, 2015

By signing the Energy Community Treaty in 2005, countries in the Western Balkans, Ukraine and Moldova agreed to abide by the European Union's competition rules. But a number of energy sector investments are being planned that may not so far have taken adequate account of state aid rules. This briefing includes case studies of projects from Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia, and Ukraine.

See related materials including a more detail briefing, a press release and a slideshow at:

Study | June 8, 2015

By signing the Energy Community Treaty in 2005, countries in the Western Balkans, Ukraine and Moldova agreed that the European Union's competition rules are to be applied also within their territory. A number of energy sector investments are being planned that may not so far have taken adequate account of State aid rules. This briefing therefore provides a summary to draw attention to relevant requirements of EU law and highlight the risks of failure to take them into account when planning investments. The account when planning investments.