Tag Archives: Romania

Five ways to destroy your energy sector and your economy – a note to the Hungarian Government

I was aiming low – ‘Five ways to destroy your energy sector and your economy – a note to the Hungarian Government.’ I IM’d the title to my friend in the Hungarian energy sector – he said, “i am sure they know at least ten.” Well, most certainly they do, but I’m not as creative as the current Hungarian government. How could I even imagine that encouraging consumers to not pay their energy bills would become a government policy – and legalized. Nonetheless, I’ve written about creative tax making in the past.

To herald in the New Year and to recognize that the wise men (and women) from the EU and IMF may be gone for a few more months and as the Orban government continues to force the country into a downward economic spiral, and installing a new authoritarianism, I thought I would provide the current government a Christmas package of proposals that could bring the Hungarian energy sector more quickly to its knees. Because, as I will show, once you have destroyed your energy sector, dissuaded manufacturers from investing due to an unstable electricity sector, the only direction to go is up – and this requires foreign investment, an effective regulatory environment and strong political will that corrects the past mistakes of low/subsidized energy prices (as demonstrated in this study).

One: Encourage consumers not to pay their energy bills

The introduction of a new bill in the Hungarian Parliament would allow public institutions like schools to avoid pay their utility bills. This proposal has caused the National Development Ministry State Secretary for Climate and Energy Affairs Janos Bencsik to submit his resignation.

A proposal submitted to Parliament by Fidesz parliamentary caucus leader János Lázár last week seeks to prevent utility companies from shutting off power to certain customers who fail to pay their bills…. Industry insiders said that the proposal would allow public institutions, many of them notorious late-payers, to ignore their utility bills with no consequences, leaving power companies no recourse but lengthy and costly legal suits.

Macedonia, provides a good example as to what can happen when no penalities are imposed on late or non-payment of electricity bills. Essentially, the Hungarian proposal reverts back to the Socialist era, when non-payment was rampant in some countries.

Hungary's new energy slogan

 

In a study on the privatization process of the Macedonian electricity company (with the distribution entity being sold to EVN) I wrote, “Unpaid consumer bills, mainly from the period before privatization, are a significant issue. EVN is pursuing lawsuits against 400,000 customers for non-payment, 80% to 90% of these cases stem from the pre-privatization period. This is down from a high of 450,000.”  The draft report was read by reviewers and they came back to say that this 400,000 number must be an error. ‘Didn’t I mean 4,000?’ No – 400,000 court cases for non-payment.

The huge number of non-payment from consumers were causing significant losses to the company at the time of privatization, around 30% of the electricity transmitted in 2006 was unpaid. Of course, these losses affected the selling price at the time of privatization, as well as an indirect impact on investments and the price of electricity – and certainly a very acrimonious relationship between the government, regulatory and EVN. At the end of the day, it is the rate payer and tax payer (usually the same) who has to pay for this.

Lesson 1: to devalue a company, lower investment and create system instability encourage consumers to NOT pay their energy bills. If the company is already foreign owned, this method will be sure to create losses for the company and may encourage their withdrawal.

Two: Regulate the price of energy below the cost of providers

The case of Bulgaria’s privatization of its power plant in Varna, to the Czech power company CEZ,  demonstrates that it doesn’t have to be just the distribution companies that can be forced to eat the losses. In the same study, the decision by the Bulgarian regulator to decide on the price of electricity that would be allowed for power production from the privately owned power plant demonstrate that  it is also the generators that sell to the distribution companies in the regulated market, that must contend with the low prices.

“In the case of CEZ’s Varna Power plant the complaint centers on two issues – regulated segment market quota and the price on the regulated segment, which, according to CEZ, is set lower than production costs. CEZ Varna states that it needs over Lev 77/MWh, to be at cost, while the approved rate from SEWRC is under Lev 72/MWh.”

The development of energy regulators is something special, however, the Hungarian government views the current regulator as not knowing better than Parliament. Since June 2010, the Hungarian Energy Office lost the power to effectively and professionally regulate the price of electricity and gas.  The justification: “it is intolerable that a significant part of families’ budgets consist of utility bills.” Therefore, the regulator is the wrong unit to ensure that families can pay their bills.

The recent ‘forced’ sale of E.ON’s gas unit to the Hungarian government, and the dumping of E.ON Bulgaria by the mother company, both demonstrate what squeezing by governments does. It is still not clear how consumers benefit from government political decision making or ownership. In the case of Bulgaria, one of the main reasons, that I was able to extract from a key participant in the privatization of the distribution companies, was the fact that the government could not be trusted to ensure investments were done due to the desire to keep prices low. The same case certainly applies to Hungary – in the medium and long term, the energy sector will begin to fail if investment levels are not maintained or even increased. It takes reflective pricing of the actual costs of the energy system to ensure proper levels of investments are done to maintain and improve security of supply.

Lesson 2: to ensure that the energy system does not improve, or begins to deteriorate, make sure that companies do not have sufficient funds to cover operating and capital expenses (CAPEX and OPEX). Either removing the regulator from the decision making process or placing political pressure on the regulator can result in lower energy prices. The result can be the company is sold back to the government at a low cost. Great strategy if forced nationalization is the objective.

Three: Create a regional hegemonic energy company!

There is nothing like nationalism to fuel erratic policy making. Ideology both pro or anti-market can dent and over simplify the complex relationship between the state and private investors in the energy sector. The fact that the energy sector is a fundamental component to economic growth and a direct link to voters (through their utility bills), makes the energy sector a highly politicized (read why politicians find energy as attractive as prostitutes). It would require a book to write about all the different and constantly changing national energy strategies in Central Eastern Europe and the South East of Europe to review how almost EVERY country considers their state owned energy companies strong enough to become a regional player like CEZ. The present result is that these ambitions have only resulted in continued justification for government ownership and a lack of modernization of assets for domestic users. Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania each has these strategies, yet none of them competes regionally.

For Hungary, the government sees that MVM (the state owned former electricity behemoth that is now being used to control everything from gas to telecoms) can fulfill this regional ‘cash cow’ role. Or as Janos Lazar, head of the parliamentary group of the Fidesz party, said in an interview. “I see great potential in MVM, in building it up, on the national and regional level. There’s a lot of money to be made here, a lot of money,” said in a Bloomberg interview. (see previous post on this.)

Hungary's future 'regional' cash cow - maybe a little too fat to make it out of the country

Lesson 3: To help justify why the government is so important in a country’s energy sector, just keep saying that they will be expanding regionally – and there is a lot of money to be made. This expansion still has not occurred, and if it were to occur it must be subsidized by current rate/tax payers. Nonetheless, there is still room for a first mover advantage by one of the large state owned energy companies – like MVM (see photo above to see how fast they can move).

Four: Create an erratic policy and regulatory environment

Maybe this goes without saying. Having an erratic policy and regulatory environment is usually built into the business plans of privately owned energy companies. For rate payers, this means paying more for their energy, because the risks are much greater and therefore energy companies entering and operating in a company are going to seek to have a higher rate of return. The rate of return that the electricity distribution companies received at the time of privatization in Bulgaria was 16% and 12% in Romania. While this may be great for the investors – at least on paper – as the case studies show, the risk that these companies took is partly justified based on the continued price squeeze that the companies are under. They are expected to fulfill their investment commitments, thus incurring losses, thus lowering the rate of return (in a very simple explanation). Whereas, a more predictable and stable regulatory environment can, over a few regulatory cycles can lower the rate of return, the country’s risk level and thus energy prices.

Lesson 4: erratic energy policies and regulations, can keep risk levels high and thus require companies to have a higher rate of return. This will result in higher energy prices, so instead of creating a stable predictable investment environment, keep companies guessing – this will justify the continued political intervention in the energy sector.

Five: Get free energy for government use – expropriate electricity and gas

Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orban speaking in December 2020, at a primary school about the success of the free energy scheme for state institutions

 

Political control over energy prices, means that privately owned companies must accept what the government tells them to charge. The point of having an energy sector regulator is to ensure that there is sufficient incentive for privately owned companies to get a fair rate of return on their investments, while protecting consumers from monopolistic abuses. A professional regulatory staff  assesses the full costs that are incurred by privately owned companies, and ensure the costs are justified and consumers pay for an efficiently run energy system. Removing incentives or not covering the cost of operations and future investments, removes the incentives to invest and threatens security of supply.

The Hungarian government now controls the price of gas and electricity. They are also about to decide that certain consumers (state owned entities) do not have to pay their energy bills. If they allow this, the government in reviewing the costs that should be allowed in the price caps, can decided that the non-payment by these consumers cannot be viewed as losses for the company to write off – or for other consumers to cover. They will force the private electricity and gas providers to pay for the energy costs of the government.

In short, as in the Socialist era, the Hungarian government will decide that government institutions do not need to pay their energy bills, they will either make the Hungarian rate/tax payer pick up the tab through their utility bills – thus higher prices, or they will force the companies to incur losses caused by non-payment from the government.

Lesson 5: If you want to ensure that the government (through whatever entity local or national) does not pay for energy usage, simply make sure the price is set by the government and stipulate in law that there are no penalties for non-payment by government entities. This will dissuade energy efficiency improvements and drive the price of energy up for everyone else – if these losses are included in the price of electricity or gas.

 

Conclusion

The five points reviewed here represent the ways that can lead to decreased investment, less private ownership(which should be more efficient), and higher energy prices for all. The one area that I have not touched on is how creating a stable investment environment, with a well functioning and independent regulator also can create lower energy prices. Erratic policy making, expropriation of energy by the government and increased state ownership all lead to higher energy prices for consumers. In the long term, the trend will only lead to an under invested energy system that has blackouts, lacks system stability and cannot support the requirements of industry. A robust energy system is a requirement for a growing economy. Failure in the energy system represents failing every citizen. The Hungarian government is only too happy to ensure that the private ownership is diminished or eliminated while state owned energy companies with no transparency -(and a history of not justifying their costs, like private utilities), become fatter and fatter. I don’t know if fat cows produce more milk, but they certainly cost more to feed. If the cost of energy is the bottom line, then let’s have some lean beef that is healthier for the consumer.

AGRI another Gas Acronym and White Elephant for CEE

Supply diversification for securing energy is based on long term persistence. The recent agreement by Hungary to establish a project company to assess the viability of the LNG based Azerbaijan-Georgia-Romanian Interconnector (AGRI), may be an initial attempt. However, current gas projects cast doubt on the viability of this project.

The project company is held with a 25% stake by each of the countries. The plan is to create LNG facilities on the shores of the Black Sea, emminating from Azerbaijan, then transport the gas via upgraded pipelines to storage facilities in Hungary, or onward to points west.

The viability of this project falls flat when you consider the other pipeline and LNG projects that are at more advanced stages, and provide equal or higher supply diversification.

First, the LNG facility under development on the island of Krk, Adria LNG, which at the moment does not have a direct investment from either the Hungarian government or MOL or its Croatian subsidary INA, is a cheaper and more effective option at supply diversification. The cost of the facility is substantial, so much so, that RWE recently pulled out. Leaving a gap that Hungary/MOL/INA can fill. The high cost of one facility to construct with 4 other partners would be substantially cheaper than building two facilities with limited supply diversification.

The fact that the gas that would feed AGRI is the same gas that will be feeding Nabucco or even the Edison backed IGI (if it happens), means AGRI offers very limited supply diversification. If we consider that Turkey and Bulgaria will probably be stable transport countries. Investing in a sea based transport route literally becomes a floating white elephant – with gas.

The limited supply of Azeri gas is already a problem for Nabucco and IGI. Will Hungary and Romania (already Nabucco partners) really compete against themselves for the same Azeri gas? Although it was just stated by Turkmenistan that they have huge reserves they want to export, realization of this supply, in an efficient and timely manner, remains to be determined.

Cost is another component. Can AGRI really compete against a pipeline route? Most likely not. Nabucco will cost €8 billion for 31 bcm, while the Krk facility is planned to cost $1.5 billion for 10 bcm per year. But then use this equation (LNG terminal x 2 + #tankers = expensive).   AGRI has not stated the amount the capacity. I would also assume the long term operating costs are also much lower on a pipeline operation. In addition, the facility is being designed to be expanded up to 15 bcm.

There is plenty of room just in the Adria LNG facility to off set any need in AGRI. In addition, if additional Azeri gas is what Romania and Hungary really want, this can be transported through Turkey and bottled up and shipped via LNG tanker to Krk.

The peanut for this white elephant is the Hungarian government choosing to go with MVM to be the project company. If it was a viable project MOL would become involved in it, not a generation company that already distorts market operations. But just like South Stream is a government supported project with progress now amounting to the number of intergovernmental agreements signed, but limited identification of which Russian gas fields will be used, this project will be long on talk and short on results.

It is important to try to understand why Hungary and Romania are joining this consortium if it isn’t a serious project. I still stand by my earlier assessment of why Hungary is choosing both Nabucco and South Stream. However, I’m more unsure as to the purpose of signing up to this project, maybe it is to turn up the pressure on Russia. They can both press their positions on Gazprom and see if it is serious about building South Stream.

While Gazprom dallies to sign up new partners every day, at the end of the day, it may represent a political shot across the bow towards Russia by Hungary and Romania. They may be hinting to Gazprom to get serious. Romania may be pressuring Gazprom to choose it over  Bulgaria for the Black Sea landing spot,  while the new Hungarian government might just like to throw off balance Russia/Gazprom. Either way, AGRI is not a serious project for supply diversification – rather a mouse used to scare the elephant.