Energy system analysis of politics of Norwegian parties Dr. Pernille Seljom, IFE

1. Energy system analysis of
politics of Norwegian parties
Pernille Seljom (pernille.seljom@ife.no)
Kristina Haaskjold
Ville Olkkonen
Kari Aamodt Espegren
Energy system analysis
Institute for Energy Technology (IFE)
Winter 2021
ETSAP meeting Kjeller, Norway 2021.11.29

2. Background and motivation
• Parliament election, 13.09.2021
• Climate and energy high focus
in election debate
• Petroleum activity
• CO2 tax
• Nature conservation
• EU‐cooperation
• New industries and technology
• Focus on individual topics
rather than holistic solutions
Our study: What are energy system effect of political party manifestos?

3. Background and motivation

4. Norwegian energy system and emissions
Norwegian GHG emissions 2020
Mt CO2 equivalents: 49.3 Mt
Oil and gas
extraction: 13.3 Industry: 11.4
Other
transport: 7.3
Agriculture
4.4
Waste
and
other: 3.8
Buildings
Road traffic: 8.4
• Electricity generation mainly hydropower
• 2019: 93%
• Large water reservoirs ‐ 50% of European
capacity
• Cold climate → High demand for space
heating
• Historically inexpensive electricity
• Energy‐intensive industry
• Electricity based heating system
• Large potential & good conditions for
onshore and offshore wind power

5. Norwegian political parties
Parties with representative at the
parliament 2021‐2025 (2017‐ 2021)
• Ap: 48 (49)
• H: 36 (45)
• Sp: 28 (19)
• FrP: 21 (27)
• SV: 13 (11)
• R: 8 (1)
• V: 8 (8)
• MDG: 3 (1)
• KrF: 3 (8)
• PF: 1 (‐)

6. Methodology
1. Review of the political manifestos
2. Convert policy to model input to IFE‐TIMES‐Norway
3. Analyze effect of politics on the Norwegian energy system towards
2030

7. IFE‐TIMES‐Norge
• Developed in collaboration with NVE
• Model strengths
• Covers the energy system
• High detail level of end‐use
• Model specifications
• Region: Spot price regions
• Model horizon: 2018 to 2050
• Temporal resolution: 4 seasons x 24 h
• Highly interconnected to the European
power market

8. Policy: Electricity generation
• Hydropower: Disagreement about the expansion
of new hydropower
• Onshore wind power: Large political
disagreement related to new onshore parks.
• Solar power: No negative policy. Two parties wish
solar power on all new commercial buildings.
• One party has a specific target of 5 GW within
2030.
Photo by Martin Adams on Unsplash
Photo by Jason Balckeye on Unsplash
From Lisa Kvalbein, IFE

9. Input on onshore wind power
Political
party
Lifetime
extension
New potential
A No No
B Yes No
C Yes Low: 3.9 TWh
D Yes Low: 3.9 TWh
E Yes No
F Yes 5.5 TWh
G Yes Applied: 10.9 TWh
H Yes 5.5 TWh
I Yes Low: 3.9 TWh
9
Ref: NVE

10. Policy on hydrogen and electricity grid
• Hydrogen
• Several parties want incentives for hydrogen
production through reduced taxes and public support
• Availability of blue hydrogen linked to politics related
to Norwegian oil and gas extraction
• One party has a goal of 400 000 tons of hydrogen
production per year.
• Power grid
• No policy on domestic transmission grids.
• Disagreement on new export cables.
• Two parties wish to limit trade with European countries
on existing cables. From Lisa Kvalbein, IFE
Bilde fra NVE

11. Politics on GHG emissions
Political
party
𝐂𝐎𝟐 price
2000 NOK/ton
Zero emission
target
A Yes Yes (2050)
B Yes Yes (2040)
C Yes
D No
E Yes Yes (2050)
F Yes Yes (2050)
G Yes
H Yes
I No CO2
11
Norwegian GHG emissions, Mt CO2 eq. Ref: SSB
2000 NOK/ ton = 200 EUR/ ton

12. Politics influencing energy service demand
12
Party A B C D E F G H I
Buildings No
increase
No
increase
Increase Increase No
increase
Increase Increase Increase Increase
Transport
‐ Road No incr. No incr NTP NTP No incr NTP NTP NTP NTP+5%
‐ Air No incr No incr NTP NTP No incr NTP NTP NTP NTP+5%
‐ Sea NTP NTP NTP NTP NTP NTP NTP NTP NTP
‐ rail NTP NTP NTP NTP NTP NTP NTP NTP NTP
Industry
‐ Electrification
offshore
+4.75 TWh +4.75 TWh +2.375
TWh
+4.75 TWh +4.75 TWh
‐ Battery plants +10 TWh +10 TWh +10 TWh +10 TWh +10 TWh +10 TWh
‐ Data center + 3 TWh + 3 TWh + 3 TWh
‐ Metal production +5 TWh +5 TWh +5 TWh +5 TWh

13. Results: Largest differences in electricity sector
New capacity 2030
13
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A B C D E F G H I
New capacity, GW
Solar Wind Hydro

14. Results: Largest differences in electricity sector
Electricity generation 2030
14
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
A B C D E F G H I
Electricity
generation, TWh
Hydro Wind Solar
180
165

15. 42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
A B C D E F G H I
Electricity price, EUR/ MWh
Results: Largest differences in electricity sector
Average electricity price in 2030
15
High industry
No new wind
48.9
Low demand
PV incentives
Low trade
44.7

16. 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
A B C D E F G H I
Mton CO2
Transport Industry Electricity DH Transport target
14.9
Results: Minor differences in emissions
CO2 emissions per sector in 2030
16
‐Lower transport
activity: A + B + E
‐Low CO2 price: D + I
‐Non‐ETS target 2030:
< 12.5 Mt
16.6

17. Concluding remarks
• Analysis of the IFE‐TIMES‐Norway is used to quantify energy system
effects of political manifestos
• Manifestos seem to be based on individual topics rather than an energy
systems thinking.
• High political focus on the Norwegian electricity sector & new industries
and less focus on measures that contributes to lower emissions.
• Input from other modelling teams on the way forward is highly welcome!
17