Southeast Europe Energy & Construction Projects: 2011

Friday, November 25, 2011

Update on New Renewable Energy Plants and Projects in Southeast Europe (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, and Turkey)

Artist’s rendering of proposed 150-meter-high dam at Andrijevo, Montenegro, from Вечерње Новости.

Turkey

In October energy licenses were granted for 13 projects:

Biomass: 1 project (2.0 MW)

Hydro: 3 projects (94, 34, and 6.8 MW)

Wind: 9 projects (of 50, 50, 50, 39, 37, 12, 9.6, 9, and 5 MW)

None of the projects that received licenses in October lie in Trakya, the European part of Turkey. The most recent renewable energy project licensed in the European part of Turkey was a 45 MW wind park in Silivri (Istanbul) that received a license in August. That license is for a park of 18 x 2.5 MW turbines, to be connected to the Silivri 154 kV substation and expected to be completed in December 2014.

Greece

In October energy licenses were requested for 86 projects:

Biomass: 9 projects (3.0, 3.0, 3.0, 2.8, 2.8, 2.5, 2.5, 2.5 and 2.3 MW)

Hydro: 2 projects (85 MW and 1.4 MW)

Photovoltaic: 46 projects (82, 46, 39, 35, 29, 28, 28, 26, 25, 25, 21, ... 1.1 MW)

Solar thermal: 3 projects (5.0, 5.0, and 1.2 MW)

Wind: 26 projects (108, 50, 48, 48, 36, 32, 32, 30, 28, 26, 24, 24, 22, 20, ... 3 MW)

In October energy licenses were granted for 74 projects:

Biogas: 5 projects (2.0, 2.4, 1.7, 1.7, and 1.7 MW)

Biomass: 1 project (4.7 MW)

Hydroelectric: 2 projects (1.8 and 0.8 MW)

Photovoltaic: 39 projects (38, 20, 8.1, 5.9, 5.2, 5.0, 4.9, 4.6, 4.6, 4.3, 4.0, 3.5, ...1.0 MW)

Solar heating: 13 projects (9.4, 6.0, 4.3, 3.3, 2.0, 2.0, 2.0, 2.0, 2.0, 2.0, 1.5, 1.3, and 1.3 MW)

Wind: 14 projects (317, 48, 36, 20, 20, 18, 16, 14, 14, 12, 10, 6.0, 3.6, and 3.4 MW)

Bulgaria

In October there was published the semi-annual update to the list of certificates of origin for renewable energy plants. According to the list the following 12 plants began producing electricity in the first half of 2011:

Photovoltaic: 8 plants (5.0, 3.9, 3.2, 3.0, 2.6, 1.1, 1.1, and 1.0 MW)

Wind: 4 plants (50, 2, 1.5, and 1.5 MW)

The small number of new plants coming online in the first half of 2011 – just 12 plants versus the 42 plants that began producing electricity in the second half of 2010 – is no doubt due to the Renewable Energy Act that the parliament passed in April and which went into effect on 3 May. From April through late June, when the new feed-in tariffs were announced for the period July 2011 - June 2012, many investors and developers put their projects on hold until they were certain how the situation would turn out. The available evidence suggests that a very large number of plants will come online in the second half of 2011.

Romania

To date 34 projects are known to have been granted permission in October for connection to the electrical grid:

Biomass: 2 projects (9 and 8 MW)

Hydro: 1 project (2 MW)

Photovoltaic: 9 projects (6, 5.5, 3.6, 3, 3, 2.9, 1.1, 0.8 and 0.2 MW)

Wind: 22 projects (147, 102, 83, 75, 48, 45, 33, 30, 10, 10, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 8, ... 2 MW)

To date 6 projects are known to have signed grid connection contracts in October:

Biomass: 1 project (3.1 MW)

Hydro: 2 projects (1.9 and 1.7 MW)

Photovoltaic: 1 project (0.0008 MW)

Wind: 2 projects (150 and 3.6 MW)

On 12 October the government issued an emergency ordinance – OUG 88/2011 – modifying Romania’s system of green certificates for renewable energy production. For additional information, see preceding blog post: Romania – Green Certificate System and Biomass Plants (in Italian).

Serbia

In October construction began on Serbia’s first biogas plant to run on animal waste, a 1 MW facility that is expected to cost € 5.5 mln and which is predicted to enter operation within nine months.

Macedonia

In October no new licenses were granted for energy production from renewable sources. In September licenses for energy production were granted for the following:

Photovoltaic: 2 projects (777 kWp in Dolani and 50 kWp in Bunardžik)

On October 13 the World Bank awarded to Pöyry Infra GmbH of Germany a contract for € 271,320 for consulting services for the preparation of an environmental impact statement for the Lukovo Pole water regulation project. The Lukovo Pole project will consist of 1) a covered feeder channel about 20 km long from the Korab catchment to the Lukovo Pole storage area and then onward to the Crn Kamen river, 2) a dam at Lukovo Pole 71 m high and 321 m long, and 3) a hydropower plant of about 5 MW on the Crn Kamen river. The project will involve a change in international borders: “The dam site is located very close to the Kosovo border. An agreement was reached between Macedonia and Kosovo in 2009 to make adjustments to their borders for locating the entire Lukovo Pole reservoir in Macedonia territory.” See also the project documents at Известување за намера за изведување на проектот акумулација "Луково Поле", довод на Корабски Води и МХЕ "Црн Камен"

Albania

In October two hydroelectric plants (of 3.9 MW and 2.5 MW) owned by a company in Skrapar were granted official qualification as renewable energy sources. In addition, official approval was granted for the owner of a 400 kW hydroelectric plant to pledge the plant as collateral to Credins Bank Sh.A. A license for energy production was also granted to a firm in Korçë that owns a 1.5 MW hydroelectric plant.

Earlier, on 26 September, it was announced that an indefinite extension had been granted to the license for energy production originally granted in 2008 – and subsequently extended in 2009 and 2010 – for a 135 MW biofuel combustion plant that Italy’s Marseglia Group is planning to build in Lezhë at a cost of € 1.2 bln. The plant is intended to produce electricity for export to Italy via a commercial submarine cable which is expected to be laid between Kallmet (Lezhë) in Albania and Zapponeta (Manfredonia) in Italy.

Montenegro

In October an application was filed for an energy license for the construction of a 630 kW hydroelectric plant at Lijeska in the northeast of the country. The project is expected to cost € 878,352, and will hook up to the 35 kV substation at Tomaševo.

On 30 September at 18:00 the government’s tender for the construction of a series of four hydroelectric plants (127.4 + 37 + 37 + 37 = 238.4 MW) on the Morača river closed. The tender process, which began in February 2010, concluded without any bid having been received from either of the two remaining qualified bidders – the consortium A2A & EPCG and the Italian firm Enel. The deadline had originally been 15 April but had been extended to 30 September at the request of Enel. Reportedly the A2A consortium declined to submit a bid because the return on investment from the project would be too low, particularly due to the height of the largest dam, a 150-meter high dam at Andrijevo.

On 29 September the government of Montenegro promulgated the country’s first feed-in tariffs for electricity from renewable energy sources. Until now the government has granted individual concessions for hydroelectric plants or has negotiated on a case-by-case basis power purchase agreements for the two wind concessions that are soon due to be built, but with this new regulation there are now feed-in tariffs for wind, biomass, solar (only if building-mounted), waste-to-energy, biogas, and hydro:

Category	Price (in eurocents/kWh)
Wind power plants	9.60
Power plants using solid biomass from forestry and agriculture from wood-processing industry	13.71 12.31
Solar power plants on buildings or construction structures	15.00
Power plants using solid landfill waste	9.00
Power plants using gas from waste	8.00
Power plants using biogas	15.00
Small hydroelectric power plants that produce up to 3.0 GWh of electricity annually that produce between 3.0 GWh and 15.0 GWh annually that produce more than 15.0 GWh annually	10.44 7.44 5.04

Power purchase contracts are signed with the energy market operator (CGES A.D.), are valid for 12 years, the feed-in tariffs are paid monthly, and the purchase price during the contract period is automatically adjusted annually for inflation.

Bosnia & Herzegovina

In October initial construction licenses were granted for the following 2 projects:

Hydro: 2 projects (0.99 and 0.23 MW)

In addition, in October a public meeting was held to discuss the environmental impact assessment that had been submitted for a proposed 33 MW pumped storage hydroelectric plant.

On 26 October the Regulatory Commission for Energy of Republika Srpska (RERS) adopted 1) a draft ordinance on stimulating the production of electricity from renewable sources and for efficient cogeneration, 2) a draft decision on the amount of the guaranteed purchase price and premium (i.e., feed-in tariffs/premiums) for electricity produced from renewable sources and for efficient cogeneration, and 3) a draft decision on the amount of incentives for the production of electricity from renewable sources and for efficient cogeneration.

On 26 October the House of Representatives of the Parliament of the Federation of Bosnia & Herzegovina adopted a draft law amending the Federation’s Law on Electric Energy.

Croatia

Between 20 September and 28 October the following 13 projects signed power purchase agreements:

Biogas: 1 project (1.0 MW)

Biomass: 1 project (7.2 MW electricity + 12 MW heat)

Photovoltaic: 11 projects (29.8, 29.7, 29.6, 29.6, 29, 28, 20, 10, 9.9, 9.7, and 4.2 kW)

In October the following 25 projects received preliminary decisions on their status as eligible producers of electrical energy from renewable sources:

Biogas: 2 projects (1 MW and 1 MW)

Biomass: 1 project (7.2 MW)

Photovoltaic: 22 projects (999, 283, 137, 30, 30, 30, 29.9, 29.9, 29.9, 29.8, 29.7, 28, 13.5, 10, ... 9.6 kW)

In addition, the following 2 projects received extensions to their earlier preliminary decisions:

Photovoltaic: 1 project (30 kW)

Wind: 1 project (34 MW)

In October no energy licenses were granted for renewable energy projects, but in September a license was granted for a wood-burning biomass cogeneration plant (3 MW electricity + 13.5 MW heat).

Slovenia

In October production facility declarations were issued for the following 34 renewable energy facilities:

Biogas: 1 facility (0.93 MW)

Photovoltaic: 33 facilities (950, 450, 393, 246, 96, 88, 50, 50, 50, 49, 48, 48, 45, 40, 39, 32, ... 1.5 kW)

Contact and siting information is available for all plants and projects mentioned, additional technical or permitting details are available for most. Please contact to request a quote for single projects/plants, multiple projects/plants, or customized monthly reports by country and/or energy type.

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Romania – Green Certificate System and Biomass Plants (in Italian)

Romania: Harta resurselor regenerabile de energie

On 26 October a LinkedIn user in Romania, S______, posted to an Italian LinkedIn group news about a decree that the Romanian government had recently issued that revised Romania’s system of green certificates to comply with a request by the European Commission. In response to his post one reader asked a question about the treatment of biomass energy under the revised system. Because the answer that was given to that question was incorrect, I joined in on the discussion in order to help clarify the treatment of biomass under the revised system. Below are the posts from that discussion.

S_________

2011-10-26

Romania: approvato il nuovo regolamento sui certificati verdi

Il nuovo regolamento sui certificati verdi, approvato nei giorni scorsi dal Governo rumeno, stimolerà nei prossimi anni investimenti nel settore delle energie verdi pari a “4-5 miliardi di euro”. Lo ha annunciato Dan Plaveti, presidente dell’Anre, l’autorità rumena per l’energia, a conclusione della riunione dell’esecutivo di Bucarest che mercoledì 12 ottobre ha approvato un decreto che, su richiesta della Commissione europea, modifica e integra la legge 220/2008 rumena per la promozione della produzione di energia da fonti energetiche rinnovabili. Perno del regime di incentivazione rumeno sono i certificati verdi, simili a quelli italiani, che i produttori da fonti rinnovabili ottengono per la produzione di elettricità pulita e che poi possono rivendere ai fornitori di energia: per quest’ultimi è previsto l’obbligo di acquisto di un certo numero di certificati verdi calcolato ogni anno in funzione di una quota stabilita dall’Anre. Le transazioni relative ai certificati verdi saranno effettuate su un mercato diverso da quello elettrico, con un prezzo minimo e massimo dei cv, stabiliti per legge, rispettivamente di 27 e 55 euro/MWh. [...]

Pierpaolo _____

2011-10-26

Una notizia decisamente interessante. Si potrebbe avere anche qualche informazione circa i certificati riconosciuti all'energia da biomasse? La Romania ha un potenziale enorme in quel settore, soprattutto se - come avviene nel Baltico e in Scandinavia - si abbinasse la generazione di energia elettrica alla fornitura di energia termica alle reti di teleriscaldamento (sicuramente da ammodernare).

S_________

2011-10-26

Sono 3 i certificati riconosciuti all'energia da biomasse

2011-10-26

Pierpaolo, l’articolo che S______ ha citato si può trovare per intero (un po’ più lungo) qui: http://www.zeroemission.eu/Rinnovabili/Romania%3A-approvato-il-nuovo-regolamento-sui-certificati-verdi/news/14511.phtml

Il testo del decreto, il OUG 88/2011, è stato pubblicato 19 ottobre sul n. 736 (partea I) del Monitorul Oficial, pagg. 3-7, che si può trovare in formato flash qui: http://www.monitoruloficial.ro/RO/article--e-Monitor--339.html

... e in formato HTML qui: http://www.dreptonline.ro/legislatie/oug_88_2011_modificare_stabilirea_sistemului_promovare_producere_energie_surse_regenerabile_energie.php

... e in una traduzione inglese ufficiale (ma non uguale alle versioni rumene sopra!) qui:

http://rwea.ro/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Emergency_Ordinance_for_EU_in_English.doc

Il testo menziona “biomasa” 8 volte. Sembra che una novità del decreto sia proprio di aver regalato *un CV in più* agli impianti che usano “colture energetiche”.

In rumeno:

ai) culturi energetice — culturi de plante agricole sau nonagricole destinate, în special, producţiei de biocarburanţi sau producţiei de biomasă utilizată în scopul producerii energiei electrice şi termice;

(5) Pentru energia electrică produsă în centrale electrice care utilizează biomasa care provine din culturi energetice, se acordă suplimentar faţă de prevederile alin. (2) lit. d) câte un certificat verde pentru fiecare 1 MWh produs şi livrat.

Dalla traduzione inglese (che contiene una precisazione di “10 MW” che non appare nella versione ufficiale pubblicata sul Monitorul Oficial):

ai) energy crop: agricultural crop developed to obtain the biomass used for the purpose of producing electricity and heat with installed power higher than 10 MW.

(5) For the energy produced in pants which use biomass resulting from energetic crops, in addition to the provisions of para. (2), let d), one green certificate shall be granted for every MWh produced and delivered.

Secondo i dati più recenti pubblicati ieri da Transelectrica, esistono in Romania tre impianti a biomasse con contratti firmati per accesso alla rete (di 0,98 MW, 1,1 MW e 6,2 MW) e altri 6 progetti che hanno ricevuto permesso per l’allacciamento ma che non hanno firmato contratti ancora (da 2,5 MW a 10,0 MW).

La legge originale che il decreto modifica, la legge 220/2008 (in vigore dal 3 novembre 2008, ora emendata più volte), si può trovare in rumeno qui: http://www.parlament.ro/pls/legis/legis_pck.htp_act?ida=82970. Come vedrai da questa pagina, la legge è stata modifcata anche il 9 luglio 2010.

Sembra che ci sia in giro anche un progetto di legge per la promozione dell’energia dalle biomasse: http://energie.businesslive.ro/european-energy-development-mircea-geoana-solicita-consultari-privind-resursele-neutilizate-pentru-productia-de-energie/

Vedi anche

http://www.econet-romania.com/en/article/55/lawsregulations-energy-from-renewable-sources-status-quo.html

e anche

http://www.res-legal.de/en/search-for-countries/romania.html

Pierpaolo __________

2011-10-28

Grazie per le utilissime informazioni.

Qualche anno fa, operando per conto di una società di ingegneria italiana, avevo seguito da vicino il mercato Romeno.

Uno dei problemi principali per gli investitori era proprio l'incertezza circa il sistema di incentivi. Da quel che ricordo, però, il potenziale delle biomasse è decisamente significativo, e credo proprio che i documenti citati da _______ lo confermeranno.

Ricordo che, ai tempi, uno dei problemi delle aziende occidentali che si proponevano di realizzare nuovi impianti a biomasse e gestire le reti di teleriscaldamento era rappresentato dallo stato della rete, soprattutto per il fatto che, essendo questa di proprietà pubblica, non era ben chiaro chi avrebbe dovuto accollarsi i costi di ammodernamento, necessari per evitare perdite che allora erano considerate eccessive.

Probabilmente delle partnership pubblico-privato potrebbero consentire di risolvere il problema, e mi piacerebbe sapere che cosa ne pensate.

P.S. Come potete capire, ho sposato in pieno l'approccio francese, per cui non è dato un impianto a biomasse che non sia di cogenerazione, anche se per la verità quando il rapporto tra la domanda di energia termica nei mesi invernali rispetto a quelli estivi è di 10 a 1, dal punto di vista tecnico si deve essere molto "creativi" per realizzare sistemi efficienti...

Fabio _______

2011-10-31

non ho acora ben letto il testo aggiornato, ma da quanto ho capito per le biomasse e leggermente diverso:

* nella versione originale vi erano 3 certificati per ogni MW + 1 se prodotte in cogenerazione ad alta efficenza (2007/74/CE)

* oggi 2 certificati per biomassa + 1 se si utilizzano colture energetiche + 1 se prodotte in cogenerazione ad alta efficenza (2007/74/CE)

ho capito bene?

2011-11-03

Fabio, quanto a me io sempre evito di entrare nell’analisi dei testi legali non aggiornati, perché non voglio rischiare di sbagliare in quel lavoro di copia e incolla, soprattutto quando si tratta di un'altra lingua. La cosa più integrata che ho trovato finora è questa...

http://luiza.manolea.ro/blog/legislatie/energie-din-surse-regenerabile/legea-2202008-promovarea-producerii-energiei-din-surse-regenerabile-de-energie/legea-nr-2202008-actualizata-cu-propunerea-de-modificare-din-iunie-2011/

Il blogger che ha compilato questo afferma di offrirci la legge di 2008 come integrata dalla legge 139/2010 e qualsiasi altra modifica fino alla proposta del presente decreto che è stata pubblicata da ANRE il 3 giugno 2011 (Vedi http://luiza.manolea.ro/blog/2011/06/23/legea-2202008-o-noua-propunere-de-modificare/). Ma il decreto di cui stavamo parlando l’altro giorno – il OUG 88/2011, pubblicato il 19 ottobre – non rispecchia esattamente la proposta da parte di ANRE.

Penso che la versione del decreto più utile a noi sia questa:

http://www.legex.ro/Ordonan%C5%A3a-urgen%C5%A3%C4%83-Nr.88-din-12.10.2011-115819.aspx

Questa versione ha, a sinistra, collegamenti ai testi legali che vengono modificati, completati o abrogati dal presente decreto. Sembra che il presente decreto, oltre a modificare la legge 220/2008, anche abroga (come si vede in fondo al decreto) “Decisione 443” di 10-04-2003 e “Decisione 1479” di 25-11-2009. (La proposta di ANRE avrebbe abrogato anche la “Decisione 1892” di 04-11-2004.)

Infatti non tutte le cose contenute nel testo del decreto del mese scorso sono nuove. Per esempio quel fatto di un certificato verde in più per gli impianti che usano “colture energetiche”, sebbene contenuto in questo decreto in mezzo al testo di una forma modificata per l’Art. 6 della legge preesistente, si trovava in quell’articolo anche prima della modifica.

Quindi per poter parlarti delle novità dovrei conoscere bene la storia della legge 220/2008, e forse anche la storia del presente decreto dalla proposta originaria da parte di ANRE a giugno, attraverso le modifiche (alcune delle quali rimaste verosimilmente in quella versione inglese “ufficiale”) fino alla versione pubblicata.

Ops, cercando insieme una certa frase dal nuovo decreto e una frase dalla legge originale 220/2008, ho appena trovato un sito solo che dice di aver integrato tutto:

http://energystreet.ro/ro/wp-content/uploads/Legea-220-139-29-88.pdf

Ma se veramente hanno fatto perfettamente il loro lavoro di integrazione non so dire io. :-)

Comunque, Fabio, io noto in questo testo di EnergyStreet almeno le seguenti cose:

Art. 3.

(1) Sistemul de promovare a energiei electrice produse din surse regenerabile de energie, denumit în continuare sistem de promovare, stabilit prin prezenta lege se aplică pentru energia electrică livrată în reţeaua electrică şi/saula consumatori, produsă din:

[...]

e) biomasă;

Art. 6.

(2) Producatorii de energie din surse regenerabile beneficiaza de un numar de certificate verzi pentru energia electrica produsa si livrata potrivit prevederilor alin. (1) dupa cum urmeaza:

[...]

d) doua certificate verzi pentru fiecare 1 MWh produs si livrat de producatorii de energie electrica din sursele

prevazute la art. 3 alin. (1) lit. d)—g);

[...]

(4) Pentru energia electrica produsa in centrale/grupuri de cogenerare care utilizeaza sursele regenerabile de energie prevazute la art. 3 alin. (1) lit. d)—i) si calificata de ANRE ca fiind de inalta eficienta se acorda suplimentar fata de prevederile alin. (2) lit. d) si e) cate un certificat verde pentru fiecare 1 MWh produs si livrat.

(5) Pentru energia electrica produsa in centrale electrice care utilizeaza biomasa care provine din culturi energetice se acorda suplimentar fata de prevederile alin. (2) lit. d) cate un certificat verde pentru fiecare 1 MWh produs si livrat.

Se sto leggendo questo correttamente, sembra che la biomassa riceverà quanto segue:

da Art. 6. (2) d): 2 CV

da Art. 6. (4): 1 CV se si tratta di cogenerazione ad alta efficienza

da Art. 6. (5): 1 CV se si tratta di colture energetiche

Questo sembra uguale a quanto avevi capito. Ma ti chiedo di non fidarti di me ma di rivolgerti ad uno studio legale, come per esempio quello di S______.

2011-11-03

Pierpaolo, dal tuo profilo e dal sito della vostra azienda capisco che siete una ditta produttrice di attrezzature, almeno per la produzione di pellets. Se non è in concorrenza con voi, posso segnalarvi una ditta in Serbia che produce e vende con molto successo nel sudest Europa caldaie specializzate per impianti a biomasse. Fammi sapere.

Saturday, August 27, 2011

Serbia – Solar – The Strange Case of the Wandering Solar Park of Merdare

A moving story

Early in the afternoon of Monday, 22 August 2011, the Serbian news agency Beta published a story about the imminent construction of what is being billed as the “first solar power plant in Kuršumlija”: “Prva solarna elektrana u Kuršumliji”. The plant is to be built by the Italian firm “Multienerdži” (Multienergy) at a place called Matarova, a village in the southern Serbian municipality of Kuršumlija that is situated just 1.5 km east of the border of the province of Kosovo. According to Beta, the installed capacity of the Matarova solar power plant will be 2 MWp, it will be built on 400 hectares of land, it is expected to produce 2.5 million kWh (2.5 GWh) of electricity annually, and the investment will amount to roughly € 5 million. Beta quotes the company’s director, Ms. Verica Ristić, as saying that the solar park will be built “by the beginning of October”. But the article also quotes the company’s president, Mr. Djovani Filpini [sic], as saying that the facility will be built within 60 days of all permits being obtained, and likewise quotes an economic development official for the municipality of Kuršumlija, Mr. Dejan Jovanović, as saying that the construction permit has not yet been obtained but should be obtained “soon”.

This story is important not so much for the energy news that it announces as for the splendid example it provides of the uncompromising laziness and sloppiness of journalistic reporting on energy matters in the Balkans, and in Serbia in particular. Not one of the numerous news sites that republished or translated the news from Beta realized that 400 hectares (4 square kilometers!) would be an insanely large area for a photovoltaic power plant of 2 MWp. (New PV plants today typically occupy about 1-2 hectares per megawatt, so a plant of 2 MW would typically take up about 2-4 hectares.) What is worse, none of them realized that this entire story was simply a slightly updated regurgitation of a story first published three months earlier.

In fact the company that is now promising to build the “first solar power plant in Kuršumlija” at the village of Matarova was promising, back in May 2011, to build the “first solar power plant in Serbia” at the Kuršumlija village of Merdare. But if we consider that 1) the village of Matarova is situated immediately to the north of the village of Merdare in the municipality of Kuršumlija, 2) the Kuršumlija area lies in an obscure corner of Serbia where very few energy projects get undertaken, and 3) the Merdare plant was supposed to be completed by September or October and the Matarova plant is expected to be completed by the beginning of October, then we probably would be justified in concluding that the two projects are one and the same.

Merdare (from kWh)

Indeed the Merdare story was first published by Beta itself on 11 May 2011: “Merdare dobija solarnu elektranu”. In this story the plant is billed as “the first solar park in Serbia”, the cost of the project is expected to be roughly € 5 million, and the installed capacity will be 2 MWp. Six days later, on 17 May, a more complete article was published by the national television network RTS, including a 2-minute video segment shown on the national evening news. Here the details given for the Merdare project are an installed capacity of 2 MWp, an area of 4 hectares, an investment of roughly € 5 million, and annual production of roughly 2.5 million kWh. The RTS article places emphasis on how the arrival of Serbia’s first PV plant in this obscure but sunny region will turn the local economy around and reverse the exodus of young people from the area, and will create jobs. (The Italian investors must have forgotten to inform the local development officials that even in Italy a PV plant of 2 MWp will have, at most, perhaps one full-time security guard.) Finally the national power company itself, EPS, published in the May 2011 issue of its monthly magazine kWh a short article on the Merdare project where, apparently for the first time, we see the area of the project given as 400 hectares and the name of the Italian president of Multienergy (Giovanni Filippini) mistakenly converted into Serbian not as “Filipini” but as “Filpini”.

Perhaps the most surprising thing about both news events – both the Multienergy “Merdare” news blitz of May 2011 and the Multienergy “Matarova” blitz of earlier this week – is that no one in the press seems to have had the slightest inclination to find out more about this company, “Multienergy”, and its Italian investors.

Who or what is “Multienergy”?

A quick check of the records of the Serbian Business Registers Agency reveals that Multienergy (Multienergy Consulting d.o.o.) was founded in Belgrade and entered in the business register on 2 February 2011:

Multienergy Consulting d.o.o.

Skadarska 51, Beograd-Stari Grad, Serbia

Registry code (Јмб):	20708697
Tax number:	106933086
Registry date:	02.02.2011
Registry number:	БД 10829/2011
Founding date:	02.02.2011

Portion of Serbian Business Registers Agency extract

The company is owned 25% each by four Italian passport holders: Sonia Grigolato, Diego Grigolato, Giovanni Filippini, and Davide Rosina. On 28 January 2011 these four Italian citizens each contributed € 250 (two hundred fifty euros) to found the company. The company’s management consists of its director Vera Ristić (born in Serbia in 1960), who is required to obtain prior approval from the founder-shareholders for any transaction in excess of € 5,000.

The firm’s accounting information is registered (with the same registry code number) to “Multienergy Consulting d.o.o. Novi Sad”, with an address at Maksima Gorkog 34, Novi Sad, Serbia.

Who are these four Italian investors? Let us consider them in order.

First “Sonia Grigolato”. In February of 2010 the Chamber of Commerce of the city of Mantova (Mantua) in Lombardia listed a “Sonia Grigolato” as the managing director of the inactive company C.I.P.E.R. S.r.l., located at Via dei Bersaglieri, 9, 46040 Casaloldo, Mantova. In March 2011 the same Chamber of Commerce reported the conversion of the firm C.I.P.E.R. S.r.l. on 3 February 2011 into the firm Ecotec S.r.l., with the same address, managing director, and VAT number.

For “Diego Grigolato” nothing useful can be found on Google for Italy.

Ditto for “Giovanni Filippini”.

And “Davide Rosina”? Here we strike paydirt. There is a “Davide Rosina” who is managing director of the firm “MDM Solar S.p.A.”, a firm with the following contact information:

Via Padana Superiore 82/i
25080 Molinetto di Mazzano (BS)
Phone: (+39) 030 21 220 83
Fax: (+39) 030 51 099 89

This firm offers investors the possibility to invest in small PV parks of 1 MWp – at least in Italy – so this could be the same “Davide Rosina” who is a 25% owner of Multienergy Consulting d.o.o. Given that the Italian government's issuing of the Quarto Conto Energia in May largely killed off business for PV development studios in Italy, it would not be surprising if at about that same time an Italian PV developer began bringing together Italian investors to test the waters in the heretofore untapped market of Serbia.

Having a little innocent fun at the locals’ expense?

The Beta story on Merdare of 11 May, as reported by B92, stated that that area had been chosen for Serbia’s first solar plant because EPS reported that Kuršumlija has “the greatest number of sunny days annually” in Serbia, and this claim was repeated in the RTS report. And yet eight months earlier, on 16 September 2010, the same B92 had published the news that a village named Velika Biljanica, five kilometers northeast of the city of Leskovac, had been chosen as the site for Serbia’s first solar plant because Serbia’s Republic Hydrometeorological Service had identified that spot as the sunniest around, with around 200 days of sunshine annually. And Leskovac is about 50 kilometers from Kuršumlija, and slightly further south. So either the national power company EPS has better insolation information than the Republic Hydrometeorological Service, or someone has been having a little fun at the expense of the poor folks of Kuršumlija.

Maps (click to enlarge):

From Mapa Srbije: