The TIMES-16RKZ model was used to assess emissions reduction potential in Kazakhstan's 16 regions under different scenarios. The model found that meeting Kazakhstan's INDC target of reducing emissions 15% below 1990 levels would require reducing coal consumption 21% compared to business as usual. Most reductions would come from the energy supply sector through improved efficiency rather than reduced demand. The key emitting regions of Almaty, Karaganda, and Pavlodar would see the largest decreases in emissions through retirement of old coal plants, increased gas generation, and new capacities in high demand growth areas. Regional policies will be important to realize differences in energy demand and prices across Kazakhstan.

1. Emissions reduction potential
assessment in regions of Kazakhstan
using TIMES-16RKZ model
B. Suleimenov, R. De Miglio, A. Kerimray
National Laboratory Astana
Nazarbayev University
IEA-ETSAP Workshop
18th-19th November 2016
CIEMAT, Madrid, Spain

2. Content
• Introduction
• TIMES-16RKZ model
• Scenarios
• Results
• Conclusions

3. Sankey diagram of energy balance
in Kazakhstan 2014, Mtoe
53% of production
is exported
Ratio between final energy
consumption and domestic
energy supply = 56%
High losses and
energy industry
own use

4. Regions of Kazakhstan
16 administrative regions:
• GDP and its structure differs
from region to region
• Different fuel energy mix by
regions due to existing energy
infrastructure (Soviet
Heritage)
• Different climate conditions
• GRP per capita varies from the
lowest 2.2k USD2005 to the
highest 18.2k USD2005
• 11 times difference in regional
energy intensity from the
lowest to the highest

5. Regions of Kazakhstan
Regions of extractions of sub-bituminous coal (values in TJ, extraction in 2011)

6. Regions of Kazakhstan
Regions of extractions of crude oil (values in TJ, extraction in 2011)

7. Regions of Kazakhstan
Regions of extractions of associated gas (values in TJ, extraction in 2011)

8. Regions of Kazakhstan
Installed power capacity by region (values in MW in 2011)

9. TPES by region
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
AKM
AKT
ALM
ATY
WKZ
ZHA
KAR
KST
KZL
MAN
SKZ
PAV
NKZ
EKZ
AST
ALC
Total primary energy supply by fuel type in 2014, (ktoe)
Coal Crude Oil Gas Biofuels and waste
• 16 regional energy balances were collected and reclassified
Generating capacities, oil refinery, heavy industry
CHP plants, Heavy industry
Oil Refinery, oil and gas extraction

10. So why regional model?
• Resource availability
• Different growth rates by regions
• Economic structure
• Climate differences
• Region oriented climate
and energy
policies test

11. TIMES-16RKZ
Fossilfuelsmining(Oilandgas,coal)
Transformation
sectors
Power sector
(electricity and
heat)
Refinery
Gas processing
Coal
transformation
Demand sectors
Residential sector
(Heating, cooling, lightning, washing,
refrigerators and etc.)
Commercial sector
(Heating, cooling, lightning, washing,
refrigerators and etc.)
Industry
(Iron and steel, aluminum, non-ferrous
metals, cement, chemicals, mining,
construction and etc.)
Transport
(Cars, light and heavy trucks, busses and etc.)
Agriculture
direct consumption
Electricity
and heat
Oil
products
LPG and
stripped
gas
Coke oven
coke, blast
furnace
gas and
etc.

12. Drivers
0.000
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
6.000
7.000
8.000
9.000
2011 2020 2030 2040 2050
GRP growth rate (2011=1)
AKM
AKT
ALM
ATY
WKZ
ZHA
KAR
KST
KZL
MAN
SKZ
PAV
NKZ
EKZ
AST
ALC
0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
2011 2020 2030 2040 2050
Population growth rate (2011=1) AKM
AKT
ALM
ATY
WKZ
ZHA
KAR
KST
KZL
MAN
Model drivers: GDP, GDPP and population are very different from region to region
Service elasticities to drivers from national model, inelastic demand projections
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Historic GDP growth of Kazakhstan
GDP

13. Scenarios
INDC
Limits GHG emissions from fuel combustion to 198.9 Mt CO2 eq. at national level (stabilization
at current level)
-50000.00
0.00
50000.00
100000.00
150000.00
200000.00
250000.00
300000.00
350000.00
400000.00
450000.00
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2014
GHG emissions trend in Kazakhstan, kt CO2 eq.
5. Waste
4. Land use, land-use
change and forestry(1)
3. Agriculture
2. Industrial processes and
product use
1. Energy
1990 minus 15% (INDC
target)
BaU
Without implementing any constraint on GHG emissions.
• INDC unconditional
target of Kazakhstan is
to reduce GHG
emissions by 15%
compared to 1990 level
(317.3 Mt)
• In 2014 the target has
been already exceeded
by 7%
• Ambitious target!

14. Results
Most emissions reductions occur
in 3 regions: Almaty, Karaganda
and Pavlodar. Last 2 regions are
regions with heavy industries and
main electricity generation
capacities.
194.5
211.1
230.8
210.6
198.9
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
1 2 3
Total GHG emissions from fuel combustion, Mt
BaU
INDC
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Differences in GHG emissions from fuel
combustion between BaU and INDC scenario by
regions in 2030, Mt
Total GHG emissions in the system
from fuel combustion
Difference between BaU and INDC
scenario is about 32 Mt CO2 eq in
2030

15. Emissions reduction has lower cost
in supply side than in demand
side. Therefore 28.6 Mt GHG
emission reduction comes from
supply and only 3.3 Mt from
demand side.
75.6
81.0
91.3
118.9
130.1
139.5
80.8
88.0
129.9
110.9
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
2011 2020 2030 2011 2020 2030
Demand Supply
GHG emissions from fuel combustion, Mt
BaU
INDC
-0.09
0.17
27.88
1.24 1.32 0.56 0.51
-5.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
Differences in CO2 emissions from fuel combustion
between Business as usual and INDC scenario by
regions of KZK, mln t
2020 2030
Emission reduction
potential by sectors
Energy sector emission reduction
based on both improved
efficiency and decreased
production.

16. INDC scenario requires 21% less coal
than BaU. Oil and gas at same level.
But TFC in INDC scenario is only 4%
less than in BaU scenario.
INDC target reached by increasing
efficiency of energy supply,
TFC/TPES increased by 4.6% in 2030.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
BaU INDC BaU INDC
2011 2020 2030
Total final consumtion, PJ
Agriculuture
Commercial
Residential
Transport
Industry
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
BaU INDC BaU INDC
2011 2020 2030
Primary energy supply, PJ
Oil
Gas
Coal
49.9%
54.4% 54.4% 57.9% 62.5%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
0 BaU INDC BaU INDC
2011 2020 2030
TFC/TPES
Energy supply and demand

17. Power generation
• In INDC scenario
electricity and heat
generation decreased
by 6.3% and 3.5%
accordingly compared
to BaU
• Coal based Pavlodar
and Karaganda remain
main electricity
producers in BaU
• In INDC new capacities
are installed in the
regions with high
demand growth
-40000
-30000
-20000
-10000
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
AKM AKT ALC ALM AST ATY EKZ KAR KST KZL MAN NKZ PAV SKZ WKZ ZHA
Difference between BaU and INDC electricity
generation, TJ
2020
2030
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
2011 2020 2030 2011 2020 2030
Electricity Heat
Electricity and heat generation, TJ
BaU
INDC

18. Heat generation is more or less same in two scenarios by regions.
-30000 20000 70000 120000 170000 220000
BaU
BaU
BaU
BaU
BaU
BaU
BaU
BaU
BaU
BaU
BaU
BaU
BaU
BaU
BaU
BaU
AKMAKTALCALMASTATYEKZKARKSTKZLMANNKZPAVSKZWKZZHA
Electricity and heat generation by regions in 2030, TJ
Electricity
Heat
Power and heat generation

19. Coal consumption decreased and gas
consumption at same level, systems
overall efficiency increased
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
BaU INDC BaU INDC BaU INDC
Generation
efficiency
Share of hydro Share of wind
2011
2020
2030
-90000
-40000
10000
60000
110000
160000
Coal Gas Fuel oil
In order to meet INDC target system uses more
efficient generation technologies and installed
wind power plant with share of generation
4.5%.
Hydro power plants generation are same in
both scenarios.
Fuel consumption for
power generation and RES

20. Investments
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
AKM AKT ALC ALM AST ATY EKZ KAR KST KZL MAN NKZ PAV SKZ WKZ ZHA
Difference in investments by regions in BaU and INDC scenario,
mln$
2020
2030
More investments in the regions with high demand growth, less investments in coal regions

21. Result from national TIMES
KZK model
INDC (- 15% 1990)
305
424
526
654
329
341
399
494
591
380
447
508
307
344
375
389
250
350
450
550
650
2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
MtCO2eq
GHG emissions scenarios
Baseline INDC ETS
ETS_HS ETS_HS & ADJ ETS_HS & CO2Tax
Differences in the results
• National model: In Baseline scenario, the gap between emissions and the INDC target
reaches 59 MtCO2eq in 2030
• Regional model: 32 Mt CO2eq in 2030
• National model uses higher GDP growth rate and sectoral drivers from CGE model,
regional model more pessimistic
• More work will be done on comparing the results and understanding the differences

22. Conclusions
• INDC target can be achieved by
– gradual retirement of old coal generating capacities
– coal consumption, obviously, must be decreased
– new generating capacities in the regions with highest
demand growth
– gas power generation in already gasified regions > no need
for gas pipeline (in contrast with national model results)
• Regionalized energy and climate policies needed
• Significant advantages comparing to national model
(energy demand distribution, particularly heating,
energy prices by regions etc.)

23. Future work
• Regional renewable energy penetration
potential
• Different national and regional economic
development scenarios
• Different regional burden sharing of GHG
emissions reduction
• Disaggregation of housing stock

24. This research was funded under the target program
№0115РК03041 “Research and development in the fields of
energy efficiency and energy saving, renewable energy
sources and environmental protection for years 2014-2016”
from the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of
Kazakhstan.
The provision of data by the Committee of Statistics of the
Republic of Kazakhstan, Information Analytical Center on Oil
and Gas, Ministry of Energy of the Republic of Kazakhstan is
greatly acknowledged.
Acknowledgements

25. Thank you!
Any questions?
Bakytzhan.suleimenov@nu.edu.kz