Apa, miracolul care scoate din bugetul Hidroelectrica peste 60 de milioane de euroWater: The Miracle That Drains €60mn From Hidoelectrica’s Budget

Dupa evaluarile fostului presedinte al Consiliului de Supraveghere de la Hidroelectrica, Remus Borza, compania pierde anual cel putin 100 de milioane de euro numai din taxa pentru constructii speciale (40 milioane euro) si din taxa pe care o plateste Apelor Romane (60 milioane euro) pentru apa uzinata. Aceasta din urma anomalie dateaza de ani buni, cand un fost ministru al mediului (UDMR) a instituit-o fara sa se consulte cu cineva. Paradoxal, cu toate ca unii specialisti in domeniu au sesizat problema tarifelor pentru apa utilizata de Hidroelectrica, Ministerul Ape Paduri Piscicultura nu aude nu vede. In randurile ce urmeaza va vom prezenta o analiza obiectiva legata de acest fenomen, realizata cu sprijinul deputatului Rodin Traicu, care a facut si o interpelare in Parlament, fara sa aiba insa un raspuns din partea Ministerului amintit.

Costurile de producere a energiei electrice pentru Hidroelectrica se ridica la circa 130 lei/MWh, in conditiile in care pretul reglementat la care vinde societatea este de 114 lei/MWh. Din vanzarile pe piata libera- concurentiala, Hidroelectrica reuseste insa sa acopere acest deficit (pretul mediu fiind in jurul a 170 lei/MWh) si sa realizeze si profit. Numai ca, la creditele pe care le are deja angajate, la lucrarile de investii si de mentenanta necesare in perioada urmatoare, profitul Hidroelectrica este unul nesemnificativ. Daca problema apei s-ar rezolva in mod firesc, cu totul altfel ar sta situatia financiar a Hidroelectrica.

Asadar, sa ne intoarcem la interpelarea de care am amintit, nu inainte de a spune ca sunt situatii in care pentru Hidroelectrica este de preferat sa evacueze apa din lacuri, decat sa o uzineze in scopul obtinerii de energie electrica. Exemplul cel mai elocvent il reprezinta Centrala de la Portile de Fier, care are o pondere de circa 40% in productia Hidroelectrica.

” In anul 2010 a aparut o Hotarare de guvern (1202) , care stabilea tariful pentru apa utilizata de Hidroelectrica in procesul de generare energie. In context, amintim ca pana in anul 2000 centralele hidroelectrice nu au platit apa uzinata, cu exceptia celor care utilizau barajele Regiei Nationale Apele Romane pentru producerea de energie electrica si care incasa atat caderea cat si debitul uzinat. Tot in anul 2000 s-a stabilit, in premiera, un tarif pentru apa uzinata de Hidroelectrica. S-a facut o Conventie intre Apele Romane si Hidroelectrica (18 ian.2000) prin care s-a stabilit un cost al apei de 1% din costul productiei de energie al hidrocentralelor din capul amenajarii hidroelectrice, raportat la volumul de apa tranzitat prin aceste hidrocentrale. Pretul stabilit pentru 1 mc de apa a fost de 0,07 lei.

Urmare a Conventiei respective si a avizului 5150, Consiliul Concurentei urma sa corecteze pretul stabilit, prin avizul 63/10.01.2000 (cu 15 zile inainte) la cel din Conventie, adica la 0,07 lei/mc (echivalent 2010-007 RON/mia de mc). In conformitate cu Legea apelor 107/1996 se permitea “corectarea nivelului preturilor si tarifelor numai in functie de dinamica preturilor-inflatie”. Ajustarea preturilor si tarifelor pentru apa bruta si serviciile specifice de gospodarire a apelor se facea de catre Consiliul Concurentei.

Ce a urmat de aici incolo nimeni nu mai explica. Conform INS (Institutul National de Statistica) rata inflatiei pentru perioada 2000-2010 a fost de 445,48% fata de cresterea pretului apei uzinate, de la 0,07 RON/1000 mc la 1,1RON/1000 mc , raportul de crestere fiind de 15.714%. Mai mult, in decembrie 2010, ANAR a cerut si a obtinut cresterea abuziva a pretului apei uzinate in hidrocentrale de la 0,26 lei/1000 mc la 1,1 lei/1000 mc.

Evident, ANAR nu a intreprins nici o cheltuiala fata de alimentarea si cererea de apa a centralelor hidro deoarece nimeni nu poate influenta debitul natural al unui curs de apa , decat prin realizarea de baraje hidrotehnice care nu apartin ANAR, ci Hidroelectrica. In acelasi timp, hidrocentralele nu pot fi considerate utilizatori finali de apa, pentru ca ele doar tranziteaza apa fara a-i modifica volumul sau calitatea.

In cazul in care ANAR nu livreaza volumul lunar de apa necesar (afluent) suplimentar nevoilor Hidroelectrica, aceasta nu se taxeaza (in conditii de excedent Hidroelectrica vinde energia sub pretul apei, iar daca nu o poate livra deverseaza,ceea ce inseamna cheltuieli suplimentare). Mai mult, in cazul in care ANAR nu livreaza volumul de apa necesar lunar, Hidroelectrica se vede obligata sa achizitioneze energie la pret de 400-450 lei/MWh , pentru ca ulterior sa o vanda la un pret de 120-170 lei/MWh, daca are piata de desfacere.

In acest caz, al livrarii de catre ANAR a a unui volum de apa sub cel necesar Hidroelectrica, rezulta ca ANAR ar trebui sa plateasca penalizari egale cu de cel putin 3 ori pretul apei pentru deficitul de volum lunar.

In realitate, pretul apei turbinate a fost modificat pentru acoperirea cheltuielilor ANAR (in mare parte necunoscute), fapt care rezulta chiar din Nota de fundamentare a HG 1202/2010, care contravine total prevederilor Directivei Europene nr.60/2000/CE.

Urmare a acestei cresteri abuzive a pretului apei uzinate toate centralele din Hidroelectrica care au caderi de calcul sub 12-15 m, dar care asigura circa 30% din productia anuala a Hidroelectrica, precum si toate microhidrocentralele pentru care se platesc certificate verzi ar trebui desfiintate. Toate aceste amenajari de cadere mica sunt din start nerentabile deoarece costul cu materia prima, adica APA, depaseste 50% din pretul de cost al unui KWh, pret exorbitant chiar si pentru energia termo sau nucleara.

Nicaieri in lume nu se mai intalneste o asemenea situatie. E cazul sa se stie ca in functie de pretul cu care Hidroelectrica vinde energia produsa (pretul reglementat fiind de circa 27 euro/MWh) , dar in situatia in care sunt debite mari (deci caderi mici pentru centralele pe firul apei, care functioneaza la aceste caderi) pretul energie electrice poate scadea la sub 20 euro/MWh, in timp ce raportul intre pretul de vanzare si cel al apei turbinate este si de 600 %. Asa apar situatiile in care Hidroelectrica prefera deversarea unei parti a energiei productibile, in vederea diminuarii pierderilor financiare“. According to evaluations made by the former chairman of the Supervisory Board of Hidroelectrica, Mr. Remus Borza, the company incurs losses of at least €100mn each year just with the special works tax (€40mn) and the fee for the turbined water, paid to the “Romanian Waters” National Administration (RWNA) (€60mn). The latter anomaly goes back years, when a former minister of environment (from UDMR, the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania) enacted it on his own. Paradoxically, while several experts in this field saw the problem of fees for the water used by Hidroelectrica, the Ministry of Waters, Forests and Fisheries turns a blind eye. Below we try to formulate an objective analysis of this situation, with the help of Mr. Rodin Traicu, MP, who also formulated an interpellation in the Parliament, without getting an answer from the aforementioned Ministry.

The costs of energy production for Hidroelectrica are 130 lei/MWh, while the regulated price of sale imposed to the company is 114 lei/MWh. The sales on the free competitive market, however, allow Hidroelectrica to cover this deficit (the average price being around 170 lei/MWh) and also show a profit. Notwithstanding that, with the credits it made, the investments and maintenance works necessary in the near future, this profit is minor. If the water problem would be solved normally, Hidroelectrica’s balance would look completely different.

So let’s get back to the interpellation we mentioned, not before adding that there are cases when Hidroelectrica prefers discharging water from its reservoirs instead of passing it through its turbines to generate electricity. The most persuasive example is the power plant Portile de Fier, with a share of 40% of Hidroelectrica’s production.

” In 2010, a Government Decision (1202) was passed, setting the tariff for the water used by Hidroelectrica to produce electricity. Within this context, we must remind that before 2000, the hydro power plants were not paying for the turbined water, except those who used Romanian Waters’ dams for their production; this National Administration charged them both for the head and the flow rate they processed. Also in 2000, a tariff for the water turbined by Hidroelectrica was introduced as a premiere. An agreement was signed between Romanian Waters and Hidroelectrica on January 18, 2000, establishing the cost of water at 1% of Hidroelectrica’s cost of production at the power plants upstream each system of hydro power works, based on the volume of water passing through these plants. The price set per cubic meter of water was 0.07 lei.

Based on this agreement and on the Approval #5150, the Competition Council subsequently corrected this price, through its Approval #63/10.01.2000 (15 days earlier), at the pre-agreement value of 0.07 lei per cubic meter (2010 equivalent – 7 RON/1000 cubic meters). The Waters Law 107/1996 allowed “correcting the prices and tariffs only based on the general price levels evolution / the inflation”. The prices and tariffs for the intake water and the specific water management services were adjusted by the Competition Council.

No one explains what followed from that point on. According to the National Institute of statistics (INS) the inflation rate for 2000 – 2010 was 445.48% while the price of processed water surged from 0,07 RON/1000 cubic meters to 1.1 RON/1000 cubic meters, which is 15,714%. Moreover, in December 2010, RWNA requested and obtained an unjust increase of the price of water processed through the power plants, from 0.26 lei/1000 cubic meters to 1.1 lei/1000 cubic meters.

Obviously, RWNA did not have any expenses related to the water intake and demand of the hydro power plants, as no one can influence the natural flow rate of a water course otherwise than by water engineering dams, who belong to Hidroelectrica, not to RWNA. Also, the hydro power plants cannot be considered end users of water, as it only passes through, without volume or quality changes.

If RWNA does not supply the monthly necessary volume for Hidroelectrica, it is not charged (if the volume is greater, Hidroelectrica sells electricity cheaper than the water; if it cannot sell energy, it discharges the water, which brings additional costs). Moreover, if RWNA does not supply the monthly necessary of water, Hidroelectrica must buy electricity at 400-450 lei/MWh to resell it at 120-170 lei/MWh if it finds an outlet.

In this case of insufficient supply of water from RWNA to Hidroelectrica, the National Administration is liable for penalties of at least 3 times the price of the deficit.

Actually, the price of turbined water has been modified to cover RWNA’s expenses, as shown right in the Justification Note of the Government Decision 1202/2010, which clearly infringes the European Directive 60/2000/CE.

As a result of this unlawful increase of the price of processed water, all Hidroelectrica’s power plants with theoretical heads below 12-15 m, covering about 30% of the annual production of energy, and all the micro power plants who receive green certificates should be closed. All this low head works are unprofitable from the very beginning, as the costs of raw material, i.e WATER, are more than 50% of the cost per KWh, which is huge even for thermal or nuclear energy.

This situation is unique in the whole world. It should be clear that depending on the base sale price of the electricity from Hidroelectrica (the regulated price being approximately 27 euros/MWh), when flow rates are high (thus the heads for the plants along a water course are low) the price of electricity can be slashed to20 euro/MWh, while the ratio between the sale price and the price of turbined water can be as high as 600%. That’s how situations occur when Hidroelectrica prefers to partially discharge the production capacity, to cut the financial losses“.