Ⅰ . Research Background and Issues
1. Background of the Study
As self-cogenerationgrows popularity, the government adopted an article ‘heat-power ratio regulation’ to support the Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO). KEPCO has been suffered from a profit decrease caused by combined heat and power cogeneration.
• Since cogeneration was introduced for industrial complexes in the 1970s and for district heating and cooling businesses in the late 1980s, it has been a power generation source with both pros and cons
from the perspective of KEPCO, which has the monopoly in the electric power industry.
- The pros include; high energy efficiency that reaches 70 to 80 percent; the ability to secure power plant sites near places that consume electric power; and its potential role as distributed generation in case of an electric power system failure.
- In contrast, cogeneration is disadvantageous for KEPCO in that increased cogeneration leads to higher average production costs. In particular, combined heat and power for district heating is most attributable to the cost increase since it serves peak loads. As the regular pricing system (which charges higher tariffs for businesses and lower for agricultural and residential uses) is not
applied, increased cogeneration also reduces KEPCO’s sales revenue. Another problem is that since it is a self-generating facility, cogeneration facilities are not linked to the country’s long-term power generation plant development plan, thereby causing excessive facilities.
• In an attempt to support KEPCO to secure stable power supply, the government adopted Article 2 of the Enforcement Ordinance of the Integrated Energy Supply Act (or IESA), which stipulates that heat production capacity should be greater than power production.
- This heat-power ratio regulation was expected to contribute to a stable monopoly of KEPCO and more efficient use of energy resources.
However, the regulation is now criticized for being outdated. In 2010s where we live in, private investments are actively made in the energy industry and power generation technology has much evolved.
• District energy (Integrated energy) supply systems require very high initial investment costs. This is why business decision makers should come up with an optimal system in consideration of the heat source sites and business conditions. However, the regulation distorts optimized constitution of heat source and thus undermines efficient utilization of resources.
- In effect, the regulation is directly affecting the heat source constitution of district heating and cooling. Cogeneration for industrial use is consisted of steam turbine engines, while that for district cooling and heating is mostly composed of a combination of gas and steam turbines.
- The recent dramatic raise in gas turbine efficiency is certainly contributing to economic feasibility of district heating and cooling using cogeneration.
The current regulation does not properly reflect such evolution of power generation technology.
2. Purpose of the Study
Why is this study needed?
• Currently, high-efficiency power generation facilities are greatly in need for stable electricity supply,
efficient utilization of fossil fuels, and economic feasibility of business operators. Nevertheless, the regulation restricts the use of such high-efficiency power generation facilities.
- Given that almost 30 years has passed since district heating and cooling was introduced, replacement of these facilities is being discussed. Business operators are increasingly more interested in a possible revision of the heat-power ratio regulation that has been influencing the heat source facilities.
- If the district heating and cooling business is operated less efficiently due to a government regulation, correction is needed for more efficient use of energy.
Purpose of the study
• There is a need to thoroughly examine whether the heat-power ratio regulation still contributes to energy efficiency of district heating and cooling.
The review is especially significant considering the current energy market where competition is being introduced and regulations are lessened.
- The purpose of the study is to verify the necessity of the heat-power ratio regulation applied to the district heating and cooling business from the perspective of efficient utilization of facilities.
Ⅱ . Research and Analysis Results
：
Background of introduction of the heat-power ratio regulation
• When the regulationwas adopted, it had a reasonable aspect as an energy efficiency measure.
- From KEPCO’s perspective, rapid spread of self- generation facilities, especially cogeneration
subsidized by the government, was undesirable.
- The government decided that self-cogeneration facilities should focus on heat rather than electricity in order to achieve efficient utilization of resources, considering a number of factors such as equity between self-generating facilities and KEPCO facilities, each facility’s contribution to
government projects, and generation technology levels.
• Back then, power generation efficiency of gas turbines and steam turbines differed little because the back pressure type without steam extraction was mainly used.
- Steam turbines are dominant in industrial complexes that use coal or heavy oil as fuel, while a combined system of gas and steam turbines are mainly used for district heating and cooling powered by natural gas.
Lifting the regulation has become a pressing matter with the increased private investment in the energy industry and dramatic development of power generation technology.
• In the 2010s, steam turbine cogeneration efficiency is around 35 percent, while the equivalent for gas turbines has dramatically improved to over 40 percent. Accordingly, combined cycle cogeneration efficiency is higher than 50 percent. (Recently announced J class efficiency hovers at 60 percent.) - Competition in the restructured electricity market
follows cost-based pricing, so power generation efficiency is an essential factor. Production costs can be reduced through high-efficiency generation facilities.
- The heat-power ratio regulation that was introduced when the market was monopolized by KEPCO has now hindering efficient utilization of resources and maximization of profits of business operators.
Unit E Class F Class G Class H Class J Class Turbine inlet
temperature ( )℃ - 1,400 1,500 1,500~
1,600 1600 Exhaust gas
temperature ( )℃ - 607 597 600 -
Gas turbine Output (MW) 168 185 264 270 470
Efficiency (%) 34.7 37.0% 39.1% 39.6% 41.0%
Combined generation
Output (MW) 251 280 387 403 680
Efficiency (%) 52.2 56.7% 58.6% 60.0% 61.7%
<Table -Ⅱ 1> Characteristics of performance of gas turbines by class
Source 1) Korea District Heating Engineering Co., material for ： internal use(F Class, G Class, H Class)
2) Korea Exim Bank, 'The Market Status of Thermal Power Generation Equipment and Competitiveness of Korean Businesses', Industrial Risk Report, 2013.(E class) 3) MHI webpage(http://www.mhi.co.jp/en/)(J class)
• Problems of the heat-power ratio regulation include:
- Unclear calculation method
- Lack of consideration of technology development - Reduced competitiveness in the electricity market
where generation efficiency is essential
- And excessive generation facilities caused by heat-oriented cogeneration
A survey was conducted to district heating business operators and experts on the regulation. The questions were about the role of integrated energy businesses, functions of the regulation, whether the regulation should continue, and how strict a regulation should be.
• 30 integrated energy business operators and 25 experts were subject to the survey about the regulation and the change of conditions surrounding the integrated energy business.
- The heat-power ratio regulation is aimed at a very specific field of the industry, so most of the general public does not fully comprehend it. This is why business operators and experts were selected as respondents.
- 17 among the 30 business operators were with district heating and cooling, 10 with integrated energy businesses in industrial complexes, 2 with both, and 1 with a perspective business that was preparing to get in the field.
- 25 experts were professors, researchers, and other professional in the field of energy.
• Socio-economic role of integrated energy business - Integrated energy business is positively perceived
in the energy market. According to the survey, 89 percent of the respondents agreed on continuous expansion of integrated energy business.
- On the other hand, 31 percent of the respondents were positive about feasibility of such businesses, while a same number of people thought otherwise.
It was thus difficult to make a conclusion on the issue.
<Table -2> Survey results on socio-economic impact Ⅱ of integrated energy business (n=55)
Role of integrated energy business Strongly
agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Enhances energy efficiency 56.4%
(31) 30.9%
(17) 10.9%
(6) 0.0%
(0) 1.8%
(1) Improves the environment 52.7%
(29) 34.6%
(19) 10.9%
(6) 0.0%
(0) 1.8%
(1) Alleviates global warming 49.1%
(27) 36.4%
(20) 12.7%
(7) 0.0%
(0) 1.8%
(1) Contributes to stable supply
and demand of electricity 49.1%
(27) 38.2%
(21) 10.9%
(6) 0.0%
(0) 1.8%
(1) Lowers peak loads in
summer/winter 40.0%
(22) 47.3%
(26) 10.9%
(6) 0.0%
(0) 1.8%
(1) Needs to be constantly
expanded 58.2%
(32) 30.9%
(17) 9.1%
(5) 0.0%
(0) 1.8%
(1) Is economically feasible 12.7%
(7) 18.2%
(10) 38.2%
(21) 21.8%
(12) 9.1%
(5)
• Impact of integrated energy business on the power generation industry
- 82 percent of the respondents answered negatively when asked whether integrated energy business undermines efficient utilization of base load power generation.
- Meanwhile, 91 percent agreed that integrated energy business helps resolve power shortage incidents. It means that integrated energy systems are perceived as a supplement to the power generation industry.
<Table -3> Impacts of integrated energy business Ⅱ on the power generation industry(n=55)
Strongly
agree Agree Strongly disagree Disagree Undermines efficient utilization
of base load power generation 1.8% 16.4% 32.7% 49.1%
Resolves power shortage
incidents 49.1% 41.8% 1.8% 7.3%
Negatively affects the revenues
of KEPCO 3.6% 12.7% 41.8% 41.8%
Should continue to focus on
heat for generation and supply 9.1% 45.5% 34.6% 10.9%
- 55 percent of the total respondents agreed that integrated energy business should mainly use heat
to generate and supply energy. To be specific, those who agreed accounted for 67 percent of the business operators and 40 percent of the experts.
- In conclusion, integrated energy business is supplementing, rather than undermining, development of the power generation industry.
•Effectiveness of the heat-power ratio regulation - When asked if the regulation increases overall
efficiency of the nation’s energy utilization, 45.5 percent of the respondents said yes, while 54.5 percent answered otherwise.
- 78 percent disagreed on the regulation’s contribution to resolving the power shortage issue.
<Table -4> Effectiveness of the heat-power ratio Ⅱ regulation(n=55)
Benefits of the heat-power ratio
regulation Strongly
agree Agree Strongly disagree Disagree Enhances energy efficiency 5.5% 40.0% 43.6% 10.9%
Contributes to efficient utilization
of base load power generation 3.6% 40.0% 45.6% 10.9%
Resolves power shortage incidents 0.0% 21.8% 56.4% 21.8%
Positively affects the revenues
of KEPCO 9.1% 40.0% 41.8% 9.1%
- 76 percent of the respondents, and 95 percent of the district heating and cooling business operators, thought the regulation is increasing the production cost of integrated power business, and 76 percent of the respondents said their revenues decreased due to the regulation.
• Desired level of a regulation
- 11 percent of the total respondents answered that the regulation should be stronger, while 20 percent said that the current regulation should continue. In total, 31 percent supported continuation or strengthening of the regulation.
- Meanwhile, 45.5 percent and 23.6 percent of the respondents said the regulation should be lessened or abolished, respectively, which makes a total 69 percent who are against the regulation.
<Table -5> The regulation should be... Ⅱ (n=55) Should be
Strengthened Should be
continued Should be
alleviated Should be abolished Total respondents 10.9%(6) 20.0%(11) 45.5%(25) 23.6%(13) Respondent
category
Business
operators 16.7%(5) 20.0%(6) 43.3%(13) 20.0%(6) Experts 4.0%(1) 20.0%(5) 48.0%(12) 28.0%(7)
Business category
District heating coolingand
5.9%(1) 11.8%(2) 58.8%(10) 23.5%(4)
Industrial
complex 40.0%(4) 30.0%(3) 20.0%(2) 10.0%(1)
- As for the reason for continuation or strengthening of the regulation, 11 among 17 respondents said the regulation contributes to more efficient utilization of integrated energy systems.
- In the case of the 38 respondents who were against the regulation, the reasons include more efficient utilizationof integratedenergy systems(13), enhanced competition in the energy market (13), increased revenue of integrated energy business operators (7), and resolution of power shortage incidents (4).
• The level of the heat-power ratio regulation
- When asked about the desired level of the heat-power ratio regulation, the 38 respondents who were against the regulation answered an average of 0.59; 9 people said 0.8, 8 said 0.5 and 5 said 0 (abolishment).
• The regulation for each category of integrated energy systems
- 36 people, or 69 percent of the total respondents, agreed on a separate regulation for each business category. Among the 36 people, 22 wanted a lessened regulation on the district heating and cooling business.
Betterment of the heat-power ratio regulation
• Principles of the regulation
- The regulation should be in line with the nation’s energy efficiency policy, while guaranteeing fair competition in the power generation sector.
• Ways to improve the current regulation
- Option 1, abolishment of the heat-power ratio regulation: The business operators will have the independence to select the power generating facility. This will help introduce highly efficient equipment to community energy systems and ultimately encourage competition with other companies in the power generation market. Some may concern that business operators might possess excessive facilities and that community energy business will become a channel to easily introduce high-efficiency equipment.
- Option 2, alleviating the heat-power ratio regulation The current level of 1.0 is lowered to ： 0.6, reflecting the results of the survey. The range of selection regarding the facilities is limited compared to Option 1, but advanced technology can be taken into account. The existing policy framework can be useful. The key is to justify the modified ratio.
- Option 3, introducing a heat-power ratio regulation for integrated energy supply systems： The heat-power concept is applied not only to cogeneration but also to every source of community energy systems, that is, cogeneration, heat-only boilers, solar energy, geothermal, incineration heat, industrial waste heat, etc. The ratio must be selected in a way that the generated energy from heat is larger than that from electricity. Business operators would have the independence to choose the facilities, and there will be incentives to develop low-cost heat source and purchase high-efficiency equipment, thereby contributing to the nation’s overall energy efficiency.
- Option 4, continuing the current heat-power ratio regulation: The current calculation method for the heat-power ratio is largely revised to maintain the ratio for cogeneration above 1. Business operators will not get to select the facilities, so it will be harder to adopt advanced power generation technology. For businesses under a certain size, a reservation could be allowed so that they can use advanced gas turbine technology. Nonetheless, it is not desirable considering the current trends that favor less regulations.
Option Pros Cons Note Option 1)
Abolishing the current regulation
-Independence to select facility -Various
business strategies
-Possible bias toward specific facilities -Heat source
shortages
-No discrimination compared to power generation companies Option 2)
Lessening the current regulation
-Less
independence to select facility -Harnessing the
current policy framework
-Limited availability of optimized facility -Difficulty in
justifying the new ratio
-0.59 according to the survey -Further
examination needed
Option 3) Introducing a whole system ratio
-Availability to choose an optimized facility -Incentives to
develop low-cost heat source
-Temporary demand for administrative efforts due to revision
-In line with the national energy efficiency programs
Option 4) Continuing the current scheme
-End to controversy regarding power plant
construction -Preventing
loopholes by business operators
-Loss of benefits of the IESA -Possible adoption
of low-efficient facility -Unstable heat
supply due to untimely construction of power plants
-Less support to integrated energy businesses -Exception
needed
<Table -6> Ways to improve the regulationⅡ
Required measures when the ratio is revised
•
- Ways to stabilize heat supply: If Option 1, 2, or 4 is selected, integrated energy business operators must prove that they are supplying heat energy in a stable manner and using energy efficiently, since integrated energy business is introduced as part of an energy efficiency program. Therefore, the operators must present ways to secure stable heat supply to target areas in a business plan when selecting high-efficiency cogeneration facilities. In addition, when choosing a business operator, the stability factor must be regarded more highly than present. When the business is under a certain size, say, 150 MW, an exception can be made so that
highly efficient facility is not excluded from the district heating market. The standard size must be examined thoroughly through a separate study. In the case of Option 3, on the other hand, the policy framework is similar to the current one so there will be no problem with heat supply.
- Revision of relevant laws and notification
Every Option requires revision of relevant laws. In
․
particular, if a whole system ratio is adopted as Option 3, a comprehensive modification is needed for the Integrated Energy Supply Act1) and the Notification (Calculation Method on Heat and Electricity Production) based on Article 2, Clause 3 of the Enforcement Ordinance.
Furthermore, the notification that specifies the
․
criteria to authorize integrated energy business must be modified as well. The evaluation items and the scoring system defined in the attached table 1 must be reasonably revised. In particular, when determining whether the supply capacity is reasonable, the heat-power ratio should be calculated based not only on cogeneration but also on the whole integrated energy system. In this case, we could encourage development of low-cost or renewable heat source by applying a proper weight to each source. A further study is needed about the weight applied to incineration heat, industrial waste heat, and renewable heat.
If the regulation is too strict, it is nearly impossible
․
to adopt high-efficiency cogeneration facility based on the IESA. In the case of Options 1 and 4, it is necessary to add an exception clause so that high-efficiency facility could be introduced when it has capacity below certain levels. The term
‘high-efficiency’ must be specifically defined in a government notification. In the case of Option 2, a clause should be added that readjustment is available when generation efficiency of turbines is enhanced.
- Equity with other energy sectors
1) To adopt Option 3, Article 2 Clause 2 of the Integrated Energy Supply Act shall be modified as following:
Current: Regarding the business defined in Clause 1, when providing heat and electricity to users, heat production capacity must be larger than electricity production capacity in a facility that produces both heat and electricity.
To-be Regarding the business defined in Clause 1, when providing heat and electricity to users, heat production capacity must be ： larger than electricity production capacity.
Owing to the widespread high-efficiency gas
․
turbines and relatively convenient authorization process, some integrated energy business operators are more interested in electricity business rather than district heating. If the regulation is lessened, a cogeneration power plant whose capacity exceeds the heat load of the region may be built. Accordingly, conflicts occur between the residents and business operators surrounding the location of the sites and the size of the power plant. There is a problem with equity because an integrated energy supply facility can be built with easier process than general power plants.
Cogeneration for the use of integrated energy
․
enjoys a number of benefits, including; offering the sites; exemption of levy on sulfur oxides (cogeneration with a capacity of 100 MW or less);
alleviated emission criteria of sulfur oxides for cogeneration using liquid fuel (new cogeneration plants or existing ones with a capacity of 100 MW or less, based on liquid-fuel boilers); and construction of power plants that are irrelevant to the Basic Plan for Supply and Demand of Electricity.
These benefits are designed to expedite the procedure to construct cogeneration power plants for integrated energy supply and mitigate the environmental duties so that heat and electricity are supplied in a timely manner.
․ If integrated energy business operators run cogeneration plants for electricity-focused projects, they will have to abide to the procedure required by the relevant government plan. They must be distinguished from other integrated energy business operators who focus on heat. It is reasonable that the power plants which mainly generate electricity must be included in the Basic Plan. However, when determining whether a power plant is heat-oriented or electricity-oriented, a closer examination is needed to come up with proper criteria, such as the heat-power ratio or the size of the generation facility2).
Ⅲ . Policy Recommendations
Review on each Option and follow-up measures
•A thorough review is needed for each Options, that is, abolishment of the heat-power ratio regulation (Option 1), alleviation of the ratio (Option 2), introduction of a whole-system heat-power ratio (Option 3), and continuation of the current scheme (Option 4).
• Option 1 and alternatives
- The heat-power ratio regulation is completely abolished. Business operators get to select the facility, but they are also responsible for a stable heat supply. The government has the right to require business operators to make appropriate actions to secure heat supply. However, if the regulation no longer exists, some who take interest in electricity business may exploit the convenient facility adoption procedure designed for integrated energy business. This is problematic in that it is unfair to general power generation companies.
- As an alternative, facility purchase according to the IESA is only allowed for an integrated energy business below a certain size. From the administrative perspective, Article 2 Clauses 2 and 3 of the Enforcement Ordinance should be deleted, and a separate clause must be added to secure a stable heat supply. Likewise, another clause should be added so that an integrated energy business over a certain size must follow a purchase procedure for general power generation facility. There should be further studies about the
‘certain size.’
•Option 2 and alternatives
- The current heat-power ratio is lowered. Business operators will have a certain degree of independence to select the necessary facility. Yet they can exploit enhanced turbine technology. The
2) The size of the heat source facility is to be determined by individual business operators, yet it is regarded as generation-oriented facility if it exceeds a certain size. Generally the economically feasible size of district heating business is, say, 150 MW of cogeneration for 30,000 homes. If a business operation wants to adopt a facility of 500 MW for 50,000 homes, than the facility is bigger than general.
Therefore, the facility can be mandated to go through the procedure for general power generation facility. A more specific study is needed on optimized heat source sizes for the heat demand.
problem is that continuous development of technology will require another adjustment of the ratio.
- In the survey, the desired level of the heat-power ratio averaged 0.59. Using the recent design of power generation facilities, the appropriate ratio for cogeneration for district heating is 0.6, and cogeneration for industrial use is 1.0.
- Several administrative measures are needed as well; the Enforcement Ordinance of the IESA should be revised, along with the government notification about the calculation method. A thorough study is needed on the latest cogeneration technology in order to determine the appropriate level of the heat-power ratio.
• Option 3 and alternatives
- Business operators design a system in a way that the total heat capacity is bigger than the electricity capacity, utilizing cogeneration, heat only boilers, and other heat sources (solar, geothermal, incineration heat, industrial waste heat, etc.). Even if business operators adopt a large cogeneration facility, they can always exploit boilers or low-cost heat source so that their heat capacity is larger than the electricity capacity in the total integrated energy system.
- This option guarantees the business operators’
right to independently select their facility.
Furthermore, it is a good way to achieve energy efficiency as the heat is not produced exclusively from district heating. Heat production can fall short of electricity production if there is high-efficiency cogeneration facility, so the business operators will try to develop low-cost heat source such as incineration heat, industrial waste heat, waste water heat, etc. In addition, heat supply can be stably secured while maintaining a similar policy framework with the current one. The business operators can enjoy a wider range of selection when purchasing a facility. Low-cost heat source development and high-efficiency facility are in line with the government’s energy efficiency schemes.
- It is necessary to delete ‘ a facility that produces … both heat and electricity’ in Article 2 Clause 2 of
the Enforcement Ordinance. The definition of the heat production capacity follows what is specified in the current heat-power ratio notification. Finally, the current notification is replaced with a new notification that defines the system heat-power ration calculation.
• Option 4 and alternatives
- The calculation methods for gas turbines, steam turbines, and combined systems are clarified so that the ratio is over 1. In this case, the first thing to do is to revise the current notification about the calculation method. A new heat-power ratio measurement criteria (ISO 15, control mode 1, for instance) should consider outdoor temperatures and control modes for each types of turbine based on design loads (maximum heat load per hour:
MCR).
- If the cogeneration power plant has a heat-power ratio of 1 or less, it should be constructed according to the regular electricity generation rules. Since heat supply facility and electric power plants are to be built separately, the integrated energy supply system might not be built in a timely manner.
- In order to supply heat stably, there should be an exception clause in the IESA, as discussed in Option 1, so that the ratio is not applied to facilities under a certain size.
Policy Recommendations
• The government should actively explore Option 3, which expands the current heat-power ratio rule for cogeneration into the whole integrated energy system. This option is in line with the government’s energy efficiency policy as well as the business strategies of relevant companies.
• If the government seeks to maintain the heat-power ratio regulation for cogeneration, the calculation method must be presented in a more concrete manner. There should be a clear line between cogeneration for district heating and for industrial complexes, and the temperature and control modes for each case must be defined clearly. If Option 3 is selected, the measurement conditions such as the temperature and control modes should be specifically defined for cogeneration and for other
heat sources.
• A data collection system should be constructed for integrated energy business. In particular, there are limited resources about the facility status, input fuels, fuel prices, and energy sales prices for industrial complexes. It is thus difficult for the government to support the businesses and improve the system. There is no consistency in the results of the survey as well.
• If the lessened regulation leads to independence for business operators to select the facility, some might concern about stable supply of heat. In addition, a possible soar in the heat prices can cause consumer anxiety. Therefore, the IESA must be revised so that the business operators are mandated to submit statistical data related to management and price-setting.
Ⅳ . Expected Achievements
Rearranging integrated energy system laws for better utilization of energy resources
• The heat-power ratio regulation, which was introduced in the past when the market was monopolized, does not properly reflect the current situation where power generation technology has dramatically advanced and electric power is traded in a free market. Revision of the relevant law, enforcement decree and notification is necessary to efficiently use energy resources and facility.
- The business operators will have the right to select the facility, and ultimately to maximize their profits.
- From the perspective of energy users, integrated energy is stably supplied by optimized heat sources.
- The government should build a data collection system to effectively support businesses and consumers.
●
References
●
•김용하 열병합발전의 열전비 산정연구 및 효율향상사업 모니터링과 검증 중간발표 자료, , 에너지관리공단
, 2013.10
•노재민 국내 열병합발전의 현황과 전망 대한전기협회지, , ,1989.11
양훈철 국내 외 가스터빈 기술 현황, ･ , KETEP Issue Paper 2011- 03 , 2011.제 호
•이유종 자가발전에 대한 업무처리지침, ( ), Ⅰ 대한전기협회지,1989.11
• , 자가발전에 대한 업무처리지침( ), Ⅱ 대한전기협회지,1989.12
• , 자가발전에 대한 업무처리지침( ), Ⅲ 대한전기협회지,1990.1
•대한전기협회, 2012 전기연감, 2012
•동력자원부 자가발전에 대한 업무처리지침, , 1989.8
•매일경제신문 열병합발전소 건설 붐,“ ”, 1989(10.2 기사).
•산업자원부 현 산업통상자원부 전력산업 구조개편 기본계획( ), , 1999.
• , 1제 차 전력수급기본계획, 2008.
•에너지관리공단 집단에너지사업 관련 자료집, , 2006.
•전기사업법 시행령 시행규칙 고시 제 개정문 등( , , , ･ )
•전력거래소, 2012년도 발전설비현황, 2013.
•지식경제부, 5㎿급 가스터빈 열병합발전 시스템 개발, 2008.
•집단에너지사업법 시행령 시행규칙 고시 제 개정문 등( , , , ･ )
•한겨레신문, “‘공룡’ 한국전력 … 예산 서울시 배3 ”, 1989(10.11 기사).
•한국수출입은행 화력발전 주요 기자재 시장 현황 및 우리기업의 경쟁력 산업리스크 , , Report, 2013.
•한국전력공사 보도 참고자료, , 2012.
•한국전력공사 한국전력통계, , 2004.
•한국전력공사 한국전력통계, , 2013.
•한국지역난방기술 주 내부자료( )
•Gujarati, D.N., and D. C. Porter 2009. Basic Econometrics 5th ed., Mc Graw-Hill.
• Long, J. S., and J. Freese, Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata, Stata Press, 2006.
•http://cyber.kepco.co.kr/kepco/main.do(한국전력공사 홈페이지)
•http://www.mhi.co.jp/en/(MHI 홈페이지)
Policy Issue Paper 13-11
Critical Review on the Heat-Power Ratio Regulation for Integrated Energy Businesses
Printed on July 15, 2015 Issued on July 15, 2015
Author：Byung-Ryeal Choi et al.
Publisher：Joo-Heon Park
Published by Korea Energy Economics Institute,
(Address) 405-11, Jongga-ro, Jung-gu, Ulsan, 44543, Korea, (Phone) +82-52-714-2114, (Fax) +82-52-714-2028 Registered on December 7, 1992
ⓒ Korea Energy Economics Institute, 2015
