Incidence of District Heating and Natural Gas Networks on Energy Poverty Across Kazakhstan by Aiymgul Kerimray, School of Engineering, National Laboratory Astana, Nazarbayev University, 0077019089737,
[email protected] Rocco De Miglio, E4SMA s.r.l Luis Rojas-Solórzano, School of Engineering, Nazarbayev University Brian Ó Gallachóir, Environmental Research Institute, University College Cork
Abstract Lack of access to modern fuels, high fuel prices, poor building insulation, and income poverty are some of the aspects leading to the energy poverty problem. Kazakhstan may be particularly highly affected by this phenomenon due to the high heating demand and severe continental climate, as well as due to the high use of coal and biomass in some of its regions. This paper investigates the linkages between energy affordability, lack of access to modern energy sources, income poverty and energy prices across the regions of Kazakhstan. The study demonstrated that households without access to modern fuels in Kazakhstan also suffer from energy affordability, due to lower incomes and higher energy expenditures or combination of both. Using both “energy affordability” and “lack of access to clean fuels” indicators shows that 18% of total surveyed households are energy poor. In addition, the survey results showed large disparities in fuel uses, households income, fuel prices and energy affordability between regions of Kazakhstan. In general, households located in the North Kazakhstan, Central and East Kazakhstan (except for Astana city) mainly suffer from lack of cleaner fuel options, income poverty, longer and colder winters as well as energy affordability.
1.
Introduction
Heating is a one of the basic needs for living in Kazakhstan. Heating season varies from 143 to 231 days. Average winter temperature varies from -16 ºС in the north, -2 ºС in the south, while average year temperature varies from 2 ºС in the north to 13 ºС in the south (Kazgydromet, 2014). Having 46% of population living in rural areas, only 4% and 24% of homes located in rural areas are provided with district heating and network gas respectively, while 100% of homes (urban and rural) is electrified (Committee of Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 2015a). Most of urban households have district heating (75%) and network gas (61%). The households, which do not have access to cleaner options for heating (e.g. network gas, district heating) mainly rely on coal and biomass for that purpose. According to the International Energy Agency, per capita residential coal consumption in Kazakhstan is the second highest in the world (IEA, 2015). Based on the analysis of Households Survey of Kazakhstan, Howie and Pak (2015) indicated that in 2012, 30% of all households used coal as a primary source for heating, increasing to 67% in rural areas. Solid fuels, in general used for heating homes and for cooking indoors, are one of the main sources of indoor air pollution, such as particulate matter (PM) (WHO, 2014). The cases of deaths due to carbon monoxide poisoning in households in Kazakhstan are reported
periodically during winter time in the local media (Tengrinews, 2014; Kazakhstan Today, 2015; Inform, 2015). However, to date, no statistics and studies of health effects and mortality due to fuel combustion at households in Kazakhstan are available. Figure 1 shows the picture of typical solid fuel fired stove use by household in Kazakhstan.
Figure 1 – Solid fuel stove in the South of Kazakhstan, Taraz.
There are only a small number of studies on residential energy consumption in Kazakhstan. Atakhanova and Howie (2015) conducted the first study on heat poverty (with focus on coal consuming households) in Kazakhstan, using the 2009 Annual Households Survey of Living Standards. Authors introduced “heat poverty” definition among residential coal consumers. Their study extends previous research by analyzing all households, including households having access to network and central heat. In a country as wide as Kazakhstan (9th place in the world with its territory) with 2.7 mln km2 of surface, exceeding 3000 km from west to east and 1700 km from south to north – energy resources, climatic conditions and heating needs, infrastructures and economic conditions differ from region to region. This paper investigates the regional differences of fuel choice and energy affordability. Solving the problems of energy poverty, reducing solid fuel use and reducing health effects from indoor air pollution requires understanding determinants of the fuel choice, economic condition of the households and their geographical location. Therefore, the present paper investigates the linkages between energy affordability, income poverty, lack of access to modern energy sources (district heating and gas) as well as energy prices across the regions of Kazakhstan. In the section 2 the Households Survey used in this study is described. Section 3 reports energy affordability and energy poverty indicators and its applicability to Kazakhstan. Section 4 reports results and discussion, section 5 reports policies and interventions, and section 6 conclusions of the investigation.
2.
Living Conditions Households Survey in Kazakhstan
This study combines and analyses data for the years 2011-2013 from the two Surveys on living conditions: D-004 Quarterly Survey of income and expenditure of households, and D-006 Annual Household Survey. These surveys are administered by Committee of Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The quarterly questionnaire on income and expenditure consists of 13 sections, including section on housing and energy expenditure. The annual survey questionnaire has 23 questions, including housing conditions: type of house (detached, semi-detached, flat), tenure status (owner, tenant), living area, number of rooms, year of dwelling construction and other (e.g. distance to social infrastructure, land use and other). The households were selected by random sampling based on Population Census. The survey covered 12000 households in 2011-2013 which is 0.2-0.3% of the total number of households in Kazakhstan.
Figure 2 - Number of surveyed households by urban and rural divide and by regions
3.
Energy affordability and energy poverty
Throughout the industrialised world, fuel poverty is the most commonly accepted term with which to describe the inability of a household to afford basic standards of heat, power and light (Liddell et al., 2012). According to Liddell et al. (2012) the term “fuel poverty” gained widespread acceptance with the publication of the UK´s Fuel Poverty Strategy in 2001, which defined it as follows: “…a fuel poor household is one that cannot afford to keep adequately warm at reasonable cost. The most widely accepted definition of a fuel poor household is one which needs to spend more than 10% of its income on all fuel use and to heat its home to an adequate standard of warmth. This is generally defined as 21 °C in
the living room and 18 °C in the other occupied rooms—the temperatures recommended by the World Health Organisation”. In the EU, most commonly metrics for accounting households experiencing fuel poverty are those spending on energy (necessary to heat homes to a comfortable level) more than a certain percentage share of household income (e.g. in Ireland, households are deemed to be experiencing fuel poverty if their annual energy bill exceeds 10% of household income). Hills (2012) proposed “Low income, high costs” indicator of fuel poverty, according to which “households are considered fuel poor if they have required fuel costs that are above the median level and were to spend that amount they would be left with a residual income below the official poverty line”. IEA (2010) provided definition of energy poverty as a lack of access to clean and commercial fuels, efficient equipment and electricity and a high dependence on traditional biomass. Energy poverty is a wider definition compared to fuel poverty, since the first one takes into account also access to clean energy sources, while second mainly focuses on affordability aspect. In the case of Kazakhstan both definitions may be applicable: fuel poverty from energy affordability perspective and energy poverty taking into account fuel cleanness. IEA (2010) definition may not be directly applied for Kazakhstan because in Kazakhstan there is a 100% access to electricity and mainly electricity and LPG is used for cooking. However there is a large dependence on coal in Kazakhstan for heating purposes. In this regard, in this study households using coal are defined as households lacking of access to cleaner fuels for heating purposes and thus, being energy poor. In addition, in this study “energy poverty” term in the context of energy affordability and lack of access to clean fuels is used. One of the main challenges in estimating energy poverty in Kazakhstan is the lack of data and the need for complex modelling. Thus, applying UK’s 10% income indicator to Kazakhstan requires estimating the “theoretical” energy consumption required to heat a home to the comfortable level (according to WHO recommendations). Pye et al. (2015) highlight that modeling of households energy requirement is complex, and it requires understanding of the building stock, households composition, occupancy and geographical location. In Kazakhstan the specifically dedicated Households Energy Consumption Survey has not been conducted, which makes it complex to perform such analysis. Additionally, the existing metrics of fuel poverty designed and used in some EU countries and in developing nations may not be applicable for Kazakhstan, due to lack of data, different market conditions (low energy prices), different official poverty line, climatic conditions and access to modern energy types (in Kazakhstan electricity access is 100%). Therefore, based on the Households Living Conditions Survey data, the households spending on energy (all energy sources) more than 10% threshold were filtered to analyze energy affordability aspect as a first estimate of energy poverty.
4.
Results and discussion
4.1 Households fuel use
Rural households in Kazakhstan have lower access to district heating and to gas network, hence these areas mainly rely on coal, wood and LPG for heating and cooking. The results from the annual household survey confirm this statement, as evidenced in Fig. 31. Different fuel combinations were filtered from the database to get total number of surveyed households. Notably, 33% of surveyed households used more than 2 fuels during the year, the use of which varies by quarter, as discussed in the section 3.3.
Number of households
3000 2500 2000 1500 1000
Rural
500
Urban
0
Fuel type
Figure 3 – Number of households by fuel combinations used by urban/rural divide (CH- central heating, GAS-distribution network gas, LPG- liquefied petroleum gas, FW – firewood) Figure 3 shows the highest number of households (2636) are using central heating and gas, mainly in urban areas. The second most popular combination is coal, LPG and firewood, used mainly by rural households having no access to gas or district heating. A further 1656 households, mainly in rural areas, use a combination of coal and LPG. Importantly, combinations with central heating are mainly urban, and combinations with coal are mainly rural. LPG penetration is significant in the country and it is used by 54% of all surveyed households. Regional disaggregation of the survey results helps to provide insights into the underlying reasons for fuel choice, as shown in Fig. 4.
1
All surveyed households are represented in the Figure. Electricity is used by all the surveyed households and is not presented in the Figure. Cooking fuels (LPG, gas) are included in the analysis.
Figure 4 - Share of households by fuels used by regions of Kazakhstan (CH- central heating, GASdistribution network gas, LPG- liquefied petroleum gas, FW – firewood) Most of the oil and gas reserves of the country are located in Western regions (Mangistau, Atyrau, West Kazakhstan and Aktobe regions). Gasification of these regions is the highest in the country. Due to network gas availability, Western regions have the lowest coal use in the country: 19% of households in Mangistau, 6% in Atyrau, 13% in Western Kazakhstan and 44% in Aktobe regions. LPG penetration is higher in the regions with lower network gas- Aktobe (56%), West Kazakhstan (27%) and Atyrau (18%). Importantly, firewood and coal were commonly used together with LPG, with the last being used mainly for cooking purposes.
4.1.2
Network gas
Network gas consumption in North, Central and East Kazakhstan is very low, due to the absence of gas pipelines. Recognizing the need to reduce air pollution from coal combustion, the Government of Kazakhstan considered different ways to extend the gas service network to non-covered regions. In 2012 the Government of Kazakhstan considered the construction of pipeline “Kartaly-Tobol-KokshetauAstana” to supply gas to some cities and villages in Central and North Kazakhstan. However, in 2013 this was postponed due to the budget limitation. In 2014, this issue was conditioned upon reaching an agreement on gas supply from Russia. Nonetheless, in 2015, the agreements with British investors foresees the construction of «Saryarka» main pipeline from «Beineu-Bozoi-Shymkent» pipeline to Astana and some locations of Central and Northern Regions (Kastransgas, 2015). In contrast to the previous plans, selection of this route for pipeline avoids imports of gas from abroad. Large distances, low density of the population, high investment costs and low economic profitability are the main obstacles for
gasification of the remote regions. Even in case of construction of «Saryarka» main pipeline, many remote communities in the North and East Kazakhstan will still remain without access to network gas. According to the survey results, number of households using network gas increased from 5189 in 2011 to 5874 in 2013. This is in line with the expansion of gas networks in recent years in the regions located across main pipeline in the West and South Kazakhstan (KazTransGas, 2016). Thus, according ot the Committee of Statitics of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the number of communities connected to network gas increased from 648 in 2010 to 891 in 2014, as shown in Fig. 5 below. 3500 3000 2500 2000
Number of gasified cities and villages
1500
Network gas sold to population, mln m3
1000
LPG sold to the population, 10t
500 0 2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Figure 5 – Natural gas and LPG sales in 2010-2014 (Committee of Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 2015a) Network gas sold to population increased from 1.98 bcm in 2010 to 3.22 bcm in 2014 (Committee of Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 2015a). Due to the expansion of gas network, LPG consumption by population declined in 2014 and over 2010-2014 it increased only by 12%. 4.1.3
Central heat
Central heating is very common in Kazakhstan and 63% of housing stock in urban areas is connected to central heating network. Central heating can be environmentally clean and energy efficient when it is well managed: efficient cogeneration, clean sources of fuels (biomass, gas), and efficient distribution. However, the central heating system in Kazakhstan is inherited from the Soviet Union times and now most of the equipment is old and obsolete (typically having reached an age between 25 and 40 years). There are significant losses of energy at the transformation, distribution and consumption levels of central heat in Kazakhstan. According to the reclassified energy balance of Kazakhstan (Kerimray et al, 2015), coal was used to produce 67% of central heat in 2014, followed by gas (33%) (Figure 6 below). Gas fired CHP and heat plants are located in the West and South of Kazakhstan (Fig 6). CHP produced 55% of central heat, while the rest was produced by heat plants.
80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0
Bituminous coal
Sub-bituminous coal
Lignite
Natural gas
Fuel oil
Figure 6 - Generation of heat by fuel in 2014, TJ (Kerimray et al., 2015)2 Importantly, residential sector is one of the largest consumer of central heat, accounting for 35% of total final consumption of central heat (Kerimray et al., 2015). According to the results of Energy Audits, most of the buildings have energy efficiency class M-N and in average consume 270 kWh/m2 of energy for heating which is significantly higher than average European 100-120 kWh/m2 (Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 2013). 30% of the housing stock needs repairment works. The highest penetration of central heating is reported in the cities: Astana (89%) and Almaty (87%).The lowest penetration of central heating is in the warmer Southern regions with mostly individual houeses: Almaty (23%), South Kazakhstan (23%) and Kyzylorda (24%) regions. 4.1.4. Coal Kazakhstan is rich in coal reserves: 21.3 bln tons of hard coal and 12.3 bln tons of brown coal (Concept of the development of fuel-energy complex by 2030, 2014). Coal reserves are located mostly in Central Kazakhstan (Karaganda region) and North Kazakhstan (Pavlodar and Kostanay regions). The western and southern regions of the Republic import coal from other regions of Kazakhstan. According to the International Energy Agency, per capita residential coal consumption in Kazakhstan is the second highest in the world (IEA, 2015). Most of the coal used by population and by heat plants belong to Maikuben, Karazhyra and Shubarkol mine fields (Concept of the development of coal industry of the Republic of Kazakhstan by 2020, 2008). The survey result demonstrate that 40% of all surveyed households use coal. There is a strong dependence on coal in rural areas of Pavlodar (91%), Kyzylorda (91%), Akmola (86%), Karaganda (84%) and Almaty (80%). The highest use of coal in urban areas is in Almaty (55%) and South Kazakhstan (42%). Analysis of income decile of coal using households showed that the number of households fall evenly across first 7 2
The data in figure was obtained from Reclassified Energy Balances for Kazakhstan (Kerimray et al., 2015). Total district heat generation is presented in the graph, including for industrial, residential and commercial sectors.
deciles, while the drop is accentuated in the last 3 deciles. Important to mention that 23-34% of the richest deciles (8-10) still use a significant amount of coal. 4.2
Energy prices
The average prices for energy commodities for 2014 were taken from the Committee of Statistics Statistical Publication on Consumer Market Price (Fig. 7) (Committee of Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 2015b). The network gas has the lowest price (321tenge/GJ), and followed by coal, which is slightly higher - 384 tenge/GJ. Central heating price is considerably higher than coal and gas. Comparing with average price in EU-28 (Eurostat, 2015) shows that average network gas price in Kazakhstan is 11.3 times cheaper (4225 tenge/ GJ in EU-28), and electricity price is 4.2 times cheaper (12205 tenge/GJ in EU-28).
2 1
CH
Network gas
LPG
Electricity
Households income
Coal
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
0 2008
0
3
2007
500
4
2006
1000
5
2005
1500
6
2004
2000
7
2003
tenge/GJ
2500
8
2002
3000
9
2001
3500
Figure 7 - Average prices for energy for consumer for 2014, tenge/GJ (left) and index of fuel prices and households income, tenge current (2001=1) (right) (Committee of Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 2015b) Households income has grown with much higher speed compared to fuel prices: by a factor of 8.1. Coal price increased with the highest rates compared to other fuels: by a factor of 4, while LPG price increased by a factor of 3.2. Coal is transported to the remote areas via trains and trucks, and the transportation and ditribution costs of coal may depend on many factors including oil products prices, rail company services fee and distributors fee. Rising prices for coal may also demonstrate that demand for coal is not declining and there is no supply of alternative fuels. Figure 8 depicts prices for fuels and central heat in 2014 by regions of Kazakhstan. The prices for network gas differ considerably from region to region (4 times difference from lowest to highest) due to long distances and transportation costs. The lowest prices for network gas are in the regions where gas resources are located and hence distribuition expenditures are low: Atyrau, Aktau and Aktobe. While in
South, South-East Kazakhstan regions the network gas price is considerably higher (Taraz, Shymkent, Almaty). 1200
tenge/GJ
1000 800 600 400 200
Western regions
North and Central Kazakhstan CH
Network gas
Almaty
Kyzylorda
Almaty city
Taraz
Shymkent
Petropavl
Zhezkazgan
Kostanay
Oskement
Pavlodar
Karagandy
Astana
Oral
Aktau
Atyrau
Aktobe
0
South Kazakhstan
Coal
Figure 8 – Average prices for energy commodities by regions of Kazakhstan in 2014 (Committee of Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 2015b) The price of coal ranges 2.9 times from the lowest 221 tenge/GJ in Pavlodar (where largest coal mines are located) to the highest 633 tenge/GJ in Oral. In Western regions (Aktobe and Oral) coal price even exceeds network gas price. The average price of coal in South is 48% higher than price in North and Central Kazakhstan, due to additional transportation and distribution costs. Despite the common knowledge than coal price is significantly cheaper than gas, the price difference is not so high. The prices of coal in Kostanay, Shymkent, Almaty city are lower than network gas by 36%, 34%, 30%, respectively. Taking into account that gas is cleaner and more efficient, the benefits of using gas is evident. The lowest price for central heat appears in the regions with gas and coal resources and large CHP plants: Aktau, Aktobe, Pavlodar. 4.3 Energy poverty and energy affordability Applying “10% household income expenditure on energy” metric to data for Kazakhstan, Fig. 9 shows that 28% of surveyed households are energy poor. Majority of those households are rural (68%). The highest number of energy poor are in Akmola, Kostanay, NKO regions.
90%
70%
80%
60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Aktobe Atryau Mangystau WestKaz Akmola Karagandy Pavlodar EastKaz Kostanay Astana city NorthKaz SouthKaz Zhambyl Almaty city Kyzylorda Almaty
0%
Western regions
North and Central Kazakhstan Urban
Rural
South Kazakhstan
% of households energy poor
% of households energy poor
80%
70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
Income decile
Figure 9 - Share of households experiencing energy poverty (10% income indicator) Income decile distribution of energy poverty, shown in Fig. 10, shows not surprisingly that the highest portions of energy poor households are in the lowest income deciles, while only 15% of energy poor households are located in the highest 6-10 income deciles. In terms of fuel use, 65% of energy poor households use coal, 30% use district heating and 26% use network gas. Highest use of coal among energy poor households is not a surprise, since average annual coal expenditure is above twice higher than gas expenditure. Figure 10 below shows households that are energy poor (10% indicator) by type fuel 3they use. 450 400 350 300 250 200
Network gas
150
CH
100
Coal
50 0
3
Total number of households may be more than surveyed households in this Figure since one household may use two or more of fuels.
Figure 10 - Number of households spending more than 10% of income by fuel and regions using both “energy affordability” and “lack of access” indicators shows that 18% of total surveyed households use coal and spend more that 10% of their income on energy.Households which are energy poor (10% indicator) and connected to network gas are located in Kostanay, Almaty city and region, which is not surprise since the analysis of prices has depicted that network gas prices were higher in those regions.
80%
7000
70%
6000
60%
5000
50%
4000
40%
3000
30% 20%
2000
10%
1000
0%
ºC-days
The Figure 11 below compares income poverty (first three income deciles), energy poverty (10% indicator) and coal users by regions of Kazakhstan. The survey results demonstrate that there are significant differences in income poverty by regions of Kazakhstan. Western regions which are rich in oil and gas have the lowest number of households in the first three income deciles: 7% in Mangistau, 16% in Atyrau. In addition, Almaty and Astana cities have low income poverty rates: 11% and 12%. The regions with the higest number of poor population (first three income deciles) are mainly in North and Central Kazakhstan: EKO (50%), NKO (49%), Akmola (47%) and Kostanay (45%).
0
First three income deciles
Energy poverty 10%
Coal users
HDD
Figure 11 - Percentage of households by income poverty, energy poverty and coal use (left axis); Heating Degree Days (right axis) (Committee of construction and housing and utilities of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 2006). Due to its vast territory, climatic conditions in Kazakhstan differ significantly from region to region. As demonstrated in Fig. 11, heating degree-days vary significantly: with the lowest being in South Kazakhstan (2864 ºC-days) and the highest in North Kazakhstan (6571 ºC-days). In most of the regions there is a strong correlation between income poverty and energy affordability. Thus, high energy poverty in Akmola, NKO and EKO may be explained by income poverty, as well as higher heating-degree days. While high energy poverty in Kostanay region maybe a combination of both high energy prices and income poverty. High use of coal in Almaty region, SKO and Kyzylorda, despite
low share of income poor maybe explained by lack of access to alternative fuel options (low penetration of central heating and network gas). 5.
Policies and interventions
Pye et al. (2015) categorized measures to tackle energy poverty and to protect vulnerable consumers in EU member countries according to the following sub-headings: Financial interventions. This may include social support, energy subsidies and payments, social tariffs. This is considered as short term action because it does not provide structural changes. Addditional consumer protection. This category includes disconnection safeguard, debt protection and other implemented by the regulator or utility company. Energy efficiency interventions. This may include retrofit grants, loans or tax incentives (targeted and non-targeted), Information and awareness (e.g. price comparison, national advice organization, transparent billing etc. In Kazakhstan, energy poverty problem is broader compared to EU member countries and includes lack of access to cleaner options and use of coal. There are no specific policies, measures and indicators to tackle energy poverty in Kazakhstan. However, there are indirect policies aimed to support poor households, improve energy efficiency in buildings and increase provision of network gas for the population. In Kazakhstan there is a financial intervention in the form of reduced payment for energy and other housing expenditures for low income households (Center for modernization and development of housing and utilities, 2015). The Government of Kazakhstan launched energy efficiency interventions (non-targeted) by creating in 2012 Fund for the development of housing and utilities (Fund) with the aim to provide credits for housing and utilites projects with the returned financing mechanism. Energy Saving - 2020 program sets an indicator to reduce energy consumption by buildings by 30% per m2 (Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 2013). However, up to now there is no information of progress towards achieving this target and the effectiveness of the Fund. Targeted energy-efficiency interventions focusing on low income population may significantly improve the energy affordability aspect of energy poverty in Kazakhstan. The construction of gas pipeline to the Central and Northern Regions (Kaztransgas, 2015) will reduce number of households relying on coal. This may lead to reduced exposure to indoor air pollution and reduced negative health outcomes. However, in terms of energy affordability aspect this measure is questionable since the the network gas price can be much higher than coal price. Long distances and high investment cost of the construction of pipeline could be the reasons of the higher network gas price. The comparison of income poor by regions of Kazakhstan shown that in the Central and North Kazakhstan the number of poorer households are higher (Figure 11). Thus, the gasification of these regions should be accompanied with the improvement of the economic condition of these regions, reduction of income poverty of the population and energy-efficiency improvement interventions. Even with the construction «Saryarka» gas pipeline to Northern and Central Kazakhstan, many remote locations will still lack access to cleaner alternatives. In this regard support schemes for other alternatives
(e.g. renewables, LPG) may improve the situation. Currently, there is a targeted aid for invidual consumers to purchase photovoltaic modules produced in Kazkahstan with the capacity not more than 5 kW. However, there is no targeted aid to purchase renewable sources of heat (e.g. heat pumps, solar thermal, biomass).
6. Conclusions Kazakhstan is a country rich in energy resourses with energy prices considerably lower than in developed nations. However, a households survey results depicted that there are problems with energy affordability and with access to clean energy in Kazakhstan. 40% of surveyed households used coal, with 24% of households being in the richest three deciles. Despite low share of income poor sector, there is a high use of coal in Almaty, SKO and Kyzylorda regions. This proves that there is a lack of alternative options for cleaner fuels. Since 100% of the population have an access to electricity and it is rarely used for heating, alternative heating technologies should be the priority. In this regard, policies for market uptake of renewable sources of heat or LPG may improve the situation with the access to cleaner options. The survey results showed large disparities in fuel uses, households income, fuel prices and energy affordability between regions of Kazakhstan. Energy prices differ considerably from region to regions due to the high distances and additional transportation and distribution costs. 28% of surveyed households were energy poor according to “10% of income“ indicator. While using both “energy affordability” and “lack of access” indicators shows that 18% of total surveyed households use coal and spend more that 10% of their income on energy. Analysis of income deciles by region showed that households in the West are generally richer, while the higher number poor households (the firsth three income deciles) are in North and Central Kazakhstan (except for Astana city). In most of the regions there is a strong correlation between income poverty and energy affordability (Akmola, NKO and EKO versus Atyrau, Mangistau). While high energy poverty with 10% indicator in Kostanay region maybe combination of both high energy prices and income poverty. In general, households located in the North Kazakhstan, Central and East Kazakhstan (except for Astana city) mainly suffer from lack of cleaner fuel options, income poverty, longer and colder winters as well as energy affordability. Providing network gas to these regions will improve the access to cleaner alternative, but higher gas prices may worsen the affordability aspect. In this regard, the gasification should be accompanied with financial interventions to low income population, energy-efficiency targeted intervention, improvement of economic condition and reduction of income poverty in those regions. Finally, solving of energy poverty problem requires improvement of energy statistics of the residential sector (e.g. residential energy consumption surveys), formulation of “composite” energy poverty metrics and targeted intervention programs to energy poor households. Importantly, regionally specific intervention programs and indicators are crucial due to vast disparities in climate, economy and access to energy among the regions of Kazakhstan. 7.
References
1) Center for modernization and development of housing and utilities, 2015. All about support to owners of apartments. In Russian. Retrieved 24/05/16 from https://www.kds.gov.kz/documents/Vse_o_zhylyshnoi_pomoshi_dlyasobstvennikov_kvartir.pdf 2) Committee of Construction and Housing and Public Utilities of the Republic of Kazakhstan (2006). Construction norms of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Energy consumption and insulation of civil buildings. In Russian. 3) Committee of Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan (2015a). Housing and public utilities 2015. Statistical Publication. In Russian. Retrieved 10/12/15 from http://stat.gov.kz/faces/wcnav_externalId/publicationsCompilations?_afrLoop=24537183792820661#%4 0%3F_afrLoop%3D24537183792820661%26_adf.ctrl-state%3Day4bst195_91 4) Committee of Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan (2015b). Consumer Market Price in 2010214. In Russsian. Retrieved from http://www.stat.gov.kz/faces/wcnav_externalId/publicationsCompilations?_afrLoop=3655379663562467 4#%40%3F_afrLoop%3D36553796635624674%26_adf.ctrl-state%3Dzefj7jl60_42 5) Concept of the development of coal industry of the Republic of Kazakhstan by 2020 (2008). In Russian. Retrieved 20/05/2016 from http://ru.government.kz/docs/_644.htm 6) Concept of the development of fuel-energy complex by 2030 (2014). In Russian. Retrieved from 22/05/16 https://tengrinews.kz/zakon/pravitelstvo_respubliki_kazahstan_premer_ministr_rk/promyishlennost/idP1400000724/ 7) Eurostat (2015). Energy price statistics. In Russian. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Energy_price_statistics 8) Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan (2013). Energy saving 2020 program. 9) Hills, J. (2012). Getting the measure of fuel poverty: Final Report of the Fuel Poverty Review. CASE report 72. ISSN 1465-3001. Retrieved 01/12/15 from http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cr/CASEreport72.pdf 10) Howie, P., Pak, P. (2015). Reducing fossil-fuel subsidies and the implication on inequality and poverty in Kazakhstan: A first estimate. 38th IAEE International Conference Antalya 2015. Retrieved 30/12/15 from http://www.iaee.org/iaee2015/program_concurrent.aspx 11) IEA (2004). Coming in from the cold. Improving District Heating Policy in Transition Economies. Retrieved 30/12/15 from https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/cold.pdf 12) IEA (2010). World Energy Outlook 2010. Retrieved 10th October 2015, from http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weo2010.pdf 13) IEA (2015). Energy balances statistics. IEA. Paris, France. Retrieved 28/11/2015, from http://www.iea.org/statistics/topics/energybalances/ 14) Inform (2015). In Chymkent 2 women died due to CO poisoning. In Russian. Retrieved 28/01/2015, from http://www.inform.kz/rus/article/2734164 15) KazakhstanToday (2015). In Zhambyl oblast woman and kid died due to CO poisoning. In Russian. Retrieved 12/02/2015, from http://www.kt.kz/rus/incidents/v_zhambilskoj_oblasti_ugarnim_gazom_nasmertj_otravilisj_zhenshtina_i _maloletnij_rebenok_1153599157.html
16) Kaztransgas (2015). «KazTransGas» JSC attracts British investors for the gasification of Astana. Retrieved 13/01/16 from http://www.kaztransgas.kz/index.php/en/press-center/press-releases/706kaztransgas-jsc-attracts-british-investors-for-the-gasification-of-astana 17) Kaztransgas (2016). Projects of modernisation and gasification of the regions of the Republic of Kazakhstan. In Russian. Retrieved from http://www.kaztransgas.kz/index.php/ru/okompanii/proekty/proekty-modernizatsii-i-gazifikatsii-regionov-respubliki-kazakhstan 18) Kazgydromet (2014). Annual bulleten of monitoring of change and condition of climate in Kazakhstan (In Russian). Astana. Available at http://www.kazhydromet.kz/ru/monitor_kz 19) Kerimray A. et al. (2015). Assessment of regional indicators for an integrated energy system planning in Kazakhstan. Industry of Kazakhstan 1(88): 22-25. In Russian. 20) Liddell C. et.al. (2012). Measuring and monitoring fuel poverty in the UK: National and regional perspectives. Energy policy. 49:27-32. 21) Pye S. et al (2015). Energy poverty and vulnerable consumers in the energy sector across the EU: analysis of policies and measures. Policy report. An Energy think tank informing the European Comission. Retrieved 23rd December 2015, from http://www.insightenergy.org/static_pages/publications#?publication=15 22) Tengrinews (2014). CO poisoning: 6 people died within a day. In Russian. Retrieved 12/02/2015, from http://tengrinews.kz/events/otravlenie-ugarnyim-gazom-za-sutki-v-kazahstane-pogibli-6-chelovek249891/ 23) WHO (2014). WHO indoor air quality guidelines: households fuel combustion. Review 8: Health effects of coal. Retrieved 25/01/2015, from http://www.who.int/indoorair/guidelines/hhfc/Review_8.pdf
