Final Report On The Preparatory Survey On Electricity Sector Reconstruction Project ( ) The Republic of Iraq, Kurdistan

The Republic of Iraq
Ministry of Electricity in Kurdistan area (RMEK)
Final Report
on
The Preparatory Survey
on
Electricity Sector Reconstruction Project (Ⅱ)
in
The Republic of Iraq, Kurdistan
August 2013
Japan International Cooperation Agency
Tokyo Electric Power Services Co.，Ltd.

7R
CR(3)
13-024
The Republic of Iraq
Ministry of Electricity in Kurdistan area (RMEK)
Final Report
on
The Preparatory Survey
on
Electricity Sector Reconstruction Project (Ⅱ)
in
The Republic of Iraq, Kurdistan
August 2013
Japan International Cooperation Agency
Tokyo Electric Power Services Co.，Ltd.

Preparatory Survey on Electricity Sector Reconstruction Project (II) In Kurdistan
Contents of Final Report for

JICA Preparatory Survey on Electricity Sector Reconstruction Project (II) in Kurdistan
Chapter 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Background of the Study ............................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Purpose and Activities ................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2.1 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................. 1-1
1.2.2 Area in Which to Conduct the Study ...................................................................... 1-1
1.2.3 Scope of the Study Works ..................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Scope of the Project .................................................................................................... 1-2
1.4 Organization of the Preparatory Survey .................................................................... 1-3
1.4.1 Conducting Organizations of the Partner Country ................................................. 1-3
1.4.2 Member List of the Survey Team ........................................................................... 1-3
1.5 Milestones and Events ................................................................................................ 1-4
1.5.1 Period of the Study ................................................................................................ 1-4
1.5.2 Study in Kurdistan .................................................................................................. 1-4
1.5.3 Reporting ...............................................................................................................1-4
Chapter 2 The Power Sector in Kurdistan ....................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Economic Condition in Kurdistan ................................................................................ 2-1
2.1.1 General Outline ...................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.2 Population and Employment .................................................................................. 2-3
2.1.3 Macro Economy ..................................................................................................... 2-6
2.2 Electricity Tariff System ............................................................................................... 2-10
2.2.1 Electricity Tariff System & Subsidy ........................................................................ 2-10
2.2.2 Electricity Sales Revenue ...................................................................................... 2-12
2.2.3 Restructuring of Tariff System ............................................................................... 2-16
Chapter 3 The Necessity and Validity of the Project ...................................................... 3-1

3.1 Power Demand in Kurdistan........................................................................................ 3-1
3.1.1 Current Power Demand and Supply ...................................................................... 3-1
3.1.2 Power Distribution by Region ................................................................................. 3-2
3.1.3 Power Demand Forecast ....................................................................................... 3-3
3.1.4 Power Demand Forecast by Region ...................................................................... 3-6
3.2 Power Development Plan ............................................................................................ 3-8
3.2.1 Present Situation of the Power System.................................................................. 3-8
3.2.2 Present Power Development Plan ......................................................................... 3-11
3.2.3 Supply Demand and Transferring the Power in each Governorate ....................... 3-12
3.3 Power Network Planning ............................................................................................. 3-14
3.3.1 Situation of the Planned Power System ................................................................. 3-14
3.3.2 Supply Demand and Transferring the Power in Planned Power System ............... 3-20
3.4 Necessity and Validity of the Project ........................................................................... 3-21
3.4.1 Objective ................................................................................................................ 3-21
3.4.2 Approach and Methodology ................................................................................... 3-21
3.4.3 Calculation Premise ............................................................................................... 3-23
3.4.4 Power Flow Analysis .............................................................................................. 3-23
3.4.5 Short Circuit Current Analysis ................................................................................ 3-27
Table of Contents - I
Chapter 4 Selection of the Substation Locations andTransmission Line Routes ...... 4-1
4.1 Required Conditions of Site Location and Route ........................................................ 4-1
4.1.1 Substation ..............................................................................................................4-1
4.1.2 Transmission Line .................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 Outline of Site Survey Results..................................................................................... 4-2
4.2.1 Substation sites ...................................................................................................... 4-2
4.2.2 Transmission Line Route ....................................................................................... 4-5
4.3 Suitability of Substation Locations............................................................................... 4-6
4.4 Suitability of Transmission Line Route ........................................................................ 4-6
Chapter 5 Environmental and Social Considerations for the Project ........................... 5-1
5.1 Legal and Administrative Framework of Iraqi Kurdistan Region
on Environmental Issues ...................................................................... 5-1
5.1.1 Law and Regulation ............................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.2 Environmental Protection and Improvement Board ............................................... 5-2
5.2 JICA Guidelines for Environmental and Social Considerations ................................... 5-4
5.2.1 Project Categorization by JICA Guidelines ............................................................ 5-4
5.2.2 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and
Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) by JICA Guidelines ............. 5-4
5.3 Procedure of Environmental and Social Consideration for the Project ....................... 5-5
5.3.1 EIA process in Iraqi Kurdistan ................................................................................ 5-5
5.3.2 Screening ...............................................................................................................5-5
5.3.3 Preparation of EIA report ....................................................................................... 5-6
5.3.4 Authorized consultants to prepare evaluation report of
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) .......................................... 5-6
5.3.5 Stakeholder Meeting .............................................................................................. 5-7
5.3.6 Environmental Compliance Certificate ................................................................... 5-8
5.4 Location of Candidate Facilities and their Environmental and Social Survey ............. 5-8
5.4.1 Candidate Facilities ................................................................................................ 5-8
5.4.2 Gomaspan Substation ........................................................................................... 5-9
5.4.3 Arbat Substation ....................................................................................................
........................................................................................................... 5-13
5.4.4Transmission line between Bazian Substation and Arbal Substation ..................... 5-17
5.5 Summary of Environmental and Social Consideration Survey .................................... 5-21
5.5.1 Results of Environmental and Social Evaluation.................................................... 5-21
5.5.2 Summary of Environmental and Social Consideration ........................................... 5-22
Chapter 6 Substation and Transmission Line Facilities ................................................ 6-1

6.1 Design of Substation ................................................................................................. 6-1
6.1.1 Design Concept ..................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1.2 Detailed Design for Gomaspan Substation and Arbat Substation ......................... 6-3
6.2 Design of Transmission Lines ..................................................................................... 6-5
6.2.1 Design Conditions .................................................................................................. 6-5
6.2.2 Conductor and Ground Wire Design ...................................................................... 6-5
6.2.3 Insulator Design ..................................................................................................... 6-6
6.2.4 Ground Clearance .................................................................................................. 6-6
6.2.5 Determination of Tower Configuration ................................................................... 6-6
Table of Contents - II
6.2.6 Foundation Configuration ....................................................................................... 6-8

6.3 Quantities of Substation Facilities ............................................................................... 6-8
6.4 Quantities of Transmission Line Materials .................................................................. 6-9
6.5 Construction Schedule ................................................................................................ 6-10
6.5.1 The Whole Construction Schedule for the Project ................................................. 6-10
6.5.2 Construction Schedule of the Substations ............................................................. 6-12
6.5.3 Construction Schedule of the Transmission Line ................................................... 6-12
6.6 Project Cost Estimation ............................................................................................... 6-13
6.6.1 Construction Cost of 400 kV Substation ................................................................ 6-13
6.6.2 Construction Cost of 400 kV Transmission Line .................................................... 6-13
6.6.3 Payment for Land Acquisition of Tower Sites and Substation and
Compensation for ROW ..................................................................... 6-15
6.6.4 Environment Monitoring Cost ................................................................................. 6-15
6.6.5 Consulting Service Cost ......................................................................................... 6-15
6.6.6 Total Project Costs ................................................................................................. 6-19
Chapter 7 Operation, Management and

Maintenance System for RMEK........................................................... 7-1
7.1 Financial Conditions of RMEK ................................................................................... 7-1
7.1.1 Financial Structure of RMEK .................................................................................. 7-1
7.1.2 Calculation for Power Tariffs as Power Business of RMEK ................................... 7-1
7.2 Operation and Maintenance Management System ................................................... 7-5
7.2.1 Organization of RMEK ........................................................................................... 7-5
7.2.2 Directorate to be involved in the Project ................................................................ 7-5
Chapter 8 Project Evaluation ............................................................................................ 8-1

8.1 Financial Analysis........................................................................................................ 8-1
8.1.1 Principles of Financial Appraisal ............................................................................ 8-1
8.1.2 Preconditins of Finalcial Analysis ........................................................................... 8-1
8.1.3 Tax system of Iraq and Kurdistan .......................................................................... 8-3
8.1.4 Methodologies for Financial Analysis ..................................................................... 8-4
8.2 Results of Economic & Financial Analysis .................................................................. 8-6
8.2.1 Project Contents and Evaluation ............................................................................ 8-6
8.2.2 Results of Financial Analysis ................................................................................. 8-6
8.2.3 Results of Economic Analysis ................................................................................ 8-10
8.3 Achievement Indicators for the Project........................................................................ 8-12
Table of Contents - III

Abbreviations and Acronyms
Organization
ENRP Electricity Network Rehabilitation Programme
JETRO Japan External Trade Organization
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
KRG Kurdistan Regional Government
MOE Ministry of Electricity
MOEE Ministry of Electricity and Energy
MOEN Ministry of Environment
NEMATR National Electrical Manufactures Association Transformer
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
POSCO Pohang Iron and Steel Company
RMEK Regional Ministry of Electricity in Kurdistan
RMOE Regional Ministry of Electricity (same as RMEK)
UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
UNDP United Nations Development Program
UNEP United Nations Environment Programmed
USAID U. S. Agency for International Development
WB World Bank
Others
ASCR Advanced Scientific Computing Research
BOI Board of Investment of KRG
CB Circuit Breaker
D Directorate
DE Directorate of Environment
DF/R Draft Final Report
DG Director General
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EIRR Economic Internal Rate of Return
ERBGPS Erbil Gas Power Station
ERPK Erbil Park
FIRR Financial Internal Rate of Return
GCC Gas Combined Cycle
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GIS Gas Insulated Switchgear
GPP Gas Power Plant
GPS Global Positioning System
HFO Heavy Fuel Oil
HPP Hydro Power Plant
HVTL High Voltage Tension Line
ID Iraqi Dinar
IEC International Electrotechnical Commission
IEE Initial Environmental Examination
IPP Independent Power Producers
MGH Mass Group Holding
Abbreviations -1
NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations

NIF Neighborhood Investment Funds
ODA Official Development Assistance
O/M Operation and Maintenance
OPGW Optical Ground Wire
PB Parsons Brinckerhoff
PP Power Plant
PQ Prequalification
PSS/E Power System Simulator for Engineering (name of analysis software)
ROA Return On Asset
ROW Right of Way
RUS Rated Ultimate Strength
SCS Substation Control System
S/S、SS Substation
STL Short Term Loan
SVC Static Var Compensator
TL Transmission Line
TOAC Taking Over and Acceptance Certificate
T/S Short Term Treasury bond
USD US Dollar
W/C Working Capital
Currency Equivalents
Currency unit = Iraqi Dinar (ID)
Exchange rate: US$1.00 = 1,156.91ID (August 13, 2013)
Source; OANDA, Selling rate Average value
Abbreviations -2
Chapter 1
Introduction
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Background of the Study
Electricity infrastructure in Kurdistan region has been developed by United Nations Development
Program (UNDP) based on Electricity Network Rehabilitation Programme (ENRP) during 1997 to 2003.
During the period, many electricity generation facilities including small generation facilities for
hospitals/public utlities have been constructed and transmission/distribution networks have been expaned.
However, still in some substations have been operating under overload condition in some local area due
to the unmaching between power supply & transmission network and demand.
Under the above circumstances, Japanese Government and JICA have targeted the reconstruction project
in the Electricity sector in Iraq as the one of most important development. Then, Japanes Government has
provided Official Development Assistant such as the gratis fund aid in 2005-06 and the five-loan fund
cooperation in 2007-09 as well. Electricity sector reconstruction project in Kurdistan region, which was
implemented by JICA as the first stage assistance, is one of five- loan fund cooperation.
Substation facilities have been constructed in the first stage of the assisitance. However, in the Kurdistan
region, substation facilities are still insufficient due to enhancement of the power plants with increasing
power demand. In addition, it is greatly necessary to construct the transmission lines connecting to
substations. The trend of electricity demad can be seen as; The peak load in the Kurdistan region in 2012
was 3,279MW while 1,171MW in 2005, which means the peak load became about three times in 7 years.
For the above reasons, it still needs to have further more supports for the transmission and substation
sector in Kurdistan region, which becomes incentive for this Study. Theoretically, high voltage electricity
transmission system drascally reduces power transmisin losses, which has similar effect of building new
power generation station. Presently, RMEK has no 400kV system in Kurdistan area and the highest
operating system voltage is 132kV. Infact, RMEK has just started constructing 400kV transmission lines
and substations as the power sector reconstruction projects in the Kurdistan region. The construction of
new 400 kV electricity system network will improve the tight electricity situation and power supply
reliability, which results in regional social economic improvements and an enhanced quality of life.
1.2 Purpose and Activities
1.2.1 Purpose of the Study
As per the above background, it is obvious that the construction of 400kV substations and transmission
lines is in line with electricity development plan of RMEK.
The purpose of the Study is to investigate the information required for the Yen-Loan Project such as the
cost estimate, schedule, implementation, organizational structure, management, and social environment.
1.2.2 Area in Which to Conduct the Study
Kurdistan region in The Republic of Iraq
1.2.3 Scope of the Study Works
The followings are the targeted study items.
1-1
(1) Review and Confirmation of the Network Planning

1) Review of the power development plan
2) Confirmation of the network development plan and power flow forecast
3) Confirmation of the regional demand and supply balance forecast
4) Review and confirmation of the necessity and appropriateness of the Project
(2) Review and confirmation of the components of the Project

1) To review the Feasibility Study undertaken in 2020 and update the Project scope
2) Proposal of consulting servic preliminary design and technical assistance under the Project
3) Estimation of the Project cost
4) Proposal of the Project implementation schedule
5) Proposal of the project’s procurement package
(3) Confirmation of operation, maintenance and management

1) Confirmation of RMEK’s technical and financial capacity
2) Confirmation of RMEK operations and the maintenance and management system to enhance
project output
(4) Project evaluation

1) Proposal of the operation and evaluation indicators of the Project
2) Indication of project beneficiaries
3) Calculation of EIRR
4) Evaluation of the qualitative effect from the Project
(5) Environmental and social considerations

1) To confirm the legal and administrative framework for the environmental and social safeguards in
Kurdistan region
2) To implement scoping
3) To monitor the progress of EIA implementation and to provide technical supports
4) To measure the environmental and social impact
5) To examine environmental management plan and environmental monitoring plan
1.3 Scope of the Project
The target facilities of the Project are shown in Table 1.3.1.
Table 1.3.1 Target Facilities of the Project

Subjects Traget Facilities LOT Remarks
400kV Transmision line between Arbat – Lot 3 Distance:69km
Transmission line
Bazian Substation, Sulaymani District
Gomaspan 400kV GIS Substaion, Erbil District Lot 1 New
Substaion Arbat 400kV GIS Substaion, Sulaymani Lot 2 New
District
The locations of the target facilities (scope) of the Project are shwn in the following Figure 1.3.1.
1-2
LOT1
LOT2
Bazian
LOT3
Figure 1.3.1 Scope of the Project
1.4 Organization of the Preparatory Survey
1.4.1 Conducting Organization of the Partner Country
RMEK provided the following menbers for this Project;
Name Assiggnment
Asaad Abdullah DG of Planning & Projects Implementaion
Diyar Baban DG of Electric Generation
Othman Haji Ali DG of Electricity Transmisson
1.4.2 Member List of the Study Tearm
The JICA Survey Team is composed of the following experts.
Name Assiggnment
Yoshio Kanda Project Leader / General Planning
Masahiro Ogawa Project Sub Leader / Facility Designing
Misaki Kittaka Power System Analysis
Takaharu Sonoyama Substation Designing
Tomoyuki Inoue Economic and Financial Analysis
Yoshio Hirayama Environment and Social Consideration
1-3
1.5 Milestones and Events
1.5.1 Period of the Study;
From December 10, 2012 to August 28, 2013.
1.5.2 Study in Kurdistan;
The following meeting and discussion have been carried out in Kurdistan;
No. Periods Agenda

1st mission January 8, 2013 to January 10, 2013 Kick off meeting
Explantation of the projects and
discussions etc
2nd mission March 11, 2013 to March 14 2013 Coordination meeting-1
Questionears and discussions for the
Project general such as target facilities,
locations, financial and environmental
issues, site survey etc
3rd mission April 22, 2013 to April 25, 2013 Coordination meeting-2
Confirmation and discussions for detailed
Project issues such as finalization of the
project scope, substation facilities,
completion periods, budgets, financial and
environmental issues, site survey of
transmission line etc
4th mission June 3, 2013 to June 6, 2013 Presentation and Confirmation etc of
Draft Final Report of the Study
1.5.3 Reporting
The following reports have been submitted;
No. Descriptions Dates

1 Incepton Report January 7, 2013
2 Interium Report April 17, 2013
3 Draft Final Report May 24, 2013
4 Final Report August 19, 2013
1-4
Chapter 2
The Power Sector in Kurdistan

Preparatory S
Survey on Elec
ctricity Sector Reconstructioon Project (II) In Kurdistan
Chapter 2 The Po
ower Sec
ctor in Kurdistan
K n
2.1 Econ
nomic cond
dition of Ku
urdistan
2.1.1 Gen
neral outlin
ne
(1) Kurddistan governnorates have become an autonomy region r since the Iraqi arrmy had witthdrawn in
1991 after Persiaan Gulf War was ended. The currentt Kurdistan territory
t inclludes Erbil, Sulaymani
and D
Duhok goverrnorates.
(2) Kurddistan has own
o government and pparliament. And, social economic developmeent of the
goverrnorates in Kurdistan
K is implementedd by Kurdistaan Regional Government
G t (KRG).
(3) Basic informationn on Kurdistaan Region, suuch as geogrraphic territory, populatioon, governorates (Erbil,
Sulayymani, and Duhok
D ) and on percentage are as the following figures
d districts, annd vegetatio f and
table..
Source KRG – Board of Investtment

Fig
gure 2.1.1 Kuurdistan geog
graphic territtory
2-1
Table 2.1.1 Kurdistan fact sheet

Items Contents
Kurdistan governorates Erbil, Sulaymani, Duhok
Population 5.20 million in 2010
Area 40,643 km2 (Around 1/2 of Hokkaido, Japan)
Ethnic group Kurdish, Arabic, Assyrian, Armenian, Turkmen, Chaldean
Religion Islam, Christian, Yazid, Others
Climate temperature Summer (High 39- 48°C) Winter( 2- 13°C)
Public safety Kurdistan is much better comparing to Iraq.
It is estimated that several thousand Iraqi migrants come to Kurdistan
regions as of February 2013.
Source: KRG – Board of Investment
Duhok
Erbil
Sulaymani
Source: The Inter-Agency Information and Analysis Unit supported by United Nation Assistance Mission for Iraq
Figure 2.1.2 Kurdistan governorates (Erbil, Sulaymani, and Duhok ) and Districts as of 2012
2-2
Source: The Inter-Agency Information and Analysis Unit supported by United Nation Assistance Mission for Iraq
Figure 2.1.3 Vegetation percentage in Kurdistan governorates

(Erbil, Sulaymani, and Duhok) as of Aug. 2012
2.1.2 Population and Employment
(1) Population
a) The Region's population increased from about 3.9 million in 2003 to 4.4 million in 2008, the
increase rate was 12.1 %. In 2010, the population became 5.4 million with the increase rate of
22% compared to 2008 and it was increased with 36.8% in comparison to the population in 2003.
b) The population is expected to rise to about 6.3 million in 2016, if the growth rate remained the
same as in the past five years, in terms of birth and mortality rates and other relevant changes.
According to Kurdistan Regional Statistics Office, the governorate annual growth population
rates in the past two decades was 3.2% in Erbil, 3.1% in Sulaymani and 2.6% in Duhok And the
average annual growth rate in Kurdistan was 3% per year.
c) Population growth rate is expected to stand at 3% or more in the medium and long term, assisted
by the rising birth rates and stable mortality rate, and achieved through expanded preventive and
medical services.
Table 2.1.2 Population trends in Kurdistan

Unit 2003 2008 2010 2016 2020 20/10
Population Million 3.9 4.4 5.4 6.3 7.1 2.8%
Average growth rate % 2.4% 10.8% 2.6% 3.0%
Source: Kurdistan Regional Statistics Office’s data referred in ” Regional Development Strategy for Kurdistan Region 2013 – 2017”
2-3
Table 2.1.3 Estimation of population in Kurdistan

Year Population Growth rate Year Population Year
(million) (%) (million) (%)
2001 2011 5.5 2.6
2002 2012 5.7 2.6
2003 3.9 2013 5.8 2.6
2004 4.0 2.4 2104 6.0 2.6
2005 4.1 2.4 2015 6.1 2.6
2006 4.2 2.4 2016 6.3 2.6
2007 4.3 2.4 2017 6.5 3.0
2008 4.4 2.4 2018 6.7 3.0
2009 4.8 10.8 2019 6.9 3.0
2010 5.4 10.8 2020 7.1 3.0
2010/ 03 4.2 2020/10 2.8
Source; JICA Survey Team after referring the above table
d) Economic active population belongs to the “15-64 year age” group, representing the available
manpower in the economy. Statistics of the Federal Government indicate that the percentage of
the economic active population rose to 29% in 2003 in Iraq. While the results of “Iraq Household
Social Economy Survey 2006 -2007” indicate that the rate of working-age population's
participation is 40.5 %. Under the governorate body count statistics for the year 2011 up to about
30.9 %.
Table 2.1.4 Participation of working population in economic activity in 2011 in Kurdistan

Governorates Rate of participation in economic activity (%)
Males Females Total
Erbil 68.4 15.5 41.4
Duhok 68.0 10.6 39.3
Sulaymani 64.5 14.9 39.7
Average 67.0 13.7 40.1
Source: Kurdistan Regional Statistics Office’s data referred in ” Regional Development Strategy for Kurdistan Region 2013 – 2017”
(2) Employment
a) Working-age population represents the social potentials and the manpower available in the
economy. According to statistics over the past thirty years, the manpower growth rate is 1.9% per
year against the population growth rate had been 3.0%. The total number of public and private
sector manpower is estimated at more than 2.6 million in 2008. The manpower employment rate
at the public sector reached 57.3% in 2011 occurring as a natural development of the change of
employment conditions of the form and contents after 2003. The private sector share was much
higher and the manpower employment rate reached 40.6 % in 2011, the details are in the
following table.
b) The manpower distributions by sector in 2009 are shown in the following table. The Commercial
sector is the highest employment rate (21.7%), followed Education sector (15.4%) and
Government sector (13.7%) and Agricultural sector (13.2%).
c) Since 2003, unemployment issue has been received with more attention by the government, due
that the rates were increased year by year. The unemployment levels reached 14% in 2009. The
three governorates in Kurdistan have different rates with 16.9% in Duhok, 13.2% in Erbil and
11.9% in Sulaymani.
2-4
Table 2.1.5 Employment of working age population by governorate in Kurdistan

Governorates Employment of Working – Age population (%)
Public Private Joint Others
Erbil 65.8 34.0 0.1 0
Duhok 59.9 36.4 3.3 0.5
Sulaymani 46.9 51.3 1.6 0.2
Average 57.5 40.6 1.7 0.2
Source: Results of the standard of living survey carried out in Iraq in 2004. The above data in 2009 are calculated after referring the results.
Table 2.1.6 Participation rate of working population by sector (2006/2007) in Kurdistan

Erbil Duhok Sulaymani Average
(%) (%) (%) (%)
Agriculture & Fishing 8.6 15.9 15.1 13.2
Mining & Manufacturing 7.4 6.9 8.0 7.4
Electricity & Water & 1.6 2.0 1.9 1.8
Gas
Building & Construction 1.7 0.8 1.4 1.3
Commercial & Business 21.4 24.4 19.5 21.7
Restaurant & Hotels 3.3 3.4 2.6 3.1
Transport & 5.1 4.5 4.5 4.7
communication
Social service & Defense 14.9 11.4 14.8 13.7
Education 16.8 15.1 14.7 15.4
Others 19.2 15.6 17.5 17.7
Source: Estimated by results of “Iraqi household Social Economy Survey 2006/2007”
(3) Human development and employment policies

According to “Regional Development Strategy for Kurdistan 2013 – 2017”, the main policies on
human development and employment in the next five years are as follows;
a) Goal of the policies

a1) Increasing labor productivity level for raising investment
a2) Adopting training and rehabilitation programs in line with local manpower market needs.
a3) Adopting a strategy to elevating women’s social and economic situation, and expanding their
choices and contribution opportunities, in addition to gender equality with regard to gaining
access to available job opportunities.
a4) Empowering young groups and increasing their effective involvement in the issues that
support development processes.
a5) Rearranging supplied and demanded manpower, and assessing actual development process
needs, in addition to ensuring their quantitative and qualitative sectoral tendencies.
a6) Supporting the sectors that absorb large numbers of manpower (use of labor -intensive and
low-capital production approaches, such as building and construction sector, and services
sector), aimed to tackle disturbed manpower distribution structures among commodity and
non-commodity sectors, and unemployment problem.
b) Achievement Indicators of the goal

b1) Increasing manpower productivity level to 4% per year.
b2) Reducing unemployment rates from 6 % to 1 % during the strategy years. For doing so,
creating 100,000 job opportunities every year.
b3) Achieving 15 % matching per year between education and training outputs and labor market
needs for scientific and educational specialties, to reach 80 % or more matching between
2-5
scientific specializations and educational programs.

b4) Developing a training strategy, aimed to provide training to at least 5 % of public sector
manpower every year, through concentration on modern management principles and
knowledge economy demands.
b5) Establishing a rehabilitation and vocational training institute in each governorate within 5
years, in addition to rehabilitating and developing the present institutes and providing them
with necessary human and material resources.
b6) Reducing migration to the cities, and resettling 5 % of the manpower migrating from the
rural areas every year through preparing a well-balanced employment policy and increasing
investments for the rural areas.
b7) Reducing non-working days by 3 % per year during five years.
2.1.3 Macro Economy
(1) GDP and per capita

a) Kurdistan experienced a large growth in national income rates and average per capita in the past
years. As a result, the production was more diversified in the economic sectors. The nominal
national income achieved a qualitative boom upwards from ID 4,374 billion in 2003 to ID 17,017
billion in 2007 at the growth rate with 40.4 % per year. In 2008, it registered another rise with ID
24,146 billion at current prices, and the growth rate is 42 % to 2007 and 41 % per year to 2003.
b) Economic development for 2005-2012 reveals that GDP at current prices increased from ID
11,186 billion in 2005 to ID 39,681 billion in 2012 at current prices, at growth rate 20 % per year,
reflecting remarkably on GDP per capita which increased from US$ 2,000 in 2005 up to
US$5,950 in 2012,the average growth rate is 16.9% per year.
c) Regarding real GDP at 2005 price, the real GDP was ID 11,186 billion in 2005 to ID 24,049
billion in 2012, the growth rate was 11.6 % per year, and GDP per capita US$ 2,000 in 2005 to
US$ 3,093 in 2012, the average growth rate was 6.9 % per year.
Table 2.1.7 Nominal GDP and GDP per capita in Kurdistan

Population Exchange ID US dollar
million ID / USD GDP Per capita GDP Per capita
ID Billion ID 1000 USD million USD
2003 3.9 1,246 4,374 1,122 3,510 900
2004 4.0 1,174 7,977 1,994 6,800 1,700
2005 4.1 1,364 11,186 2,728 8,200 2,000
2006 4.2 1,281 14,523 3,458 11,340 2,700
2007 4.3 1,236 17,017 3,957 13,760 3,200
2008 4.4 1,193 24,146 5,488 20,240 4,600
2009 4.8 1,170 22,745 4,739 19,440 4,050
2010 5.4 1,170 28,431 5,265 24,300 4,500
2011 5.5 1,170 35,393 6,435 30,250 5,500
2012 5.7 1,170 39,681 6,962 33,915 5,950
Source: Exchange: International financial Statistics
GDP: Regional Development Strategy for Kurdistan 2013-2017
Income per capita National income /population
GDP: GDP per capita * population
GDP per capita: Presentation side from Dr Ezat Issa, KRG Adviser in Kurdistan Trade & Investment Conference 2010, London
2-6
Table 2.1.8 Real GDP (at 2005 price) and GDP per capita in Kurdistan
Price index ID US dollar
2005=100 Real GDP Per capita Real GDP Per capita
ID billion ID 1000 USD million USD / person
2005 100 11,186 2,728 8,200 2,000
2006 126 11,526 2,744 8,450 2,012
2007 122 13,948 3,243 10,226 2,378
2008 136 17,754 4,035 13,016 2,958
2009 145 15,686 3,268 11,500 2,396
2010 148 19,210 3,557 14,084 2,608
2011 157 22,543 4,099 16,527 3,005
2012 165 24,049 4,219 17,631 3,093
Note: Exchange rate of 1,364 ID /USD in 2005 is used for the all years
Source: JICA Survey Team
(2) Contribution of sectoral GDP

a) The contribution of Commercial & Trade & Service sector was 15 % to the total GDP in 2004
and the contribution increased to 31.4 % in 2011. The growth rate is the highest in the sectors
from 2004 to 2011.
b) The next higher growth of the contribution is Mining & Manufacturing sector including
Electricity and Water sector. The contribution was 2.6 % to the total GDP in 2004, it increased to
9.4 % in 2011.
c) And the contribution of Agriculture & Fishery sector also reached 14.6% to the total GDP in 2004,
the contribution increased to 17.6 % in 2011.
d) The contribution of Building and Construction sector was 1.9 % in 2004, the contribution
increased to 7.6 % in 2011.
e) While, Government services were 35.9 % in 2004, however, the contribution was decreased to
20.6 % in 2011. It means the governmental roles in economic activities are gradually decreased.
Table 2.1.9 Sectoral contributions to GDP at current price in Kurdistan

Sectors 2004 2005 2006 2007 2011
Agriculture & Fishery 14.6% 10.1% 5.8% 5.7% 17.6%
Mining & manufacturing 2.2% 2.0% 1.1% 5.4%
9.4%
Electricity & Water 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.9%
Building & Construction 1.9% 7.0% 4.0% 9.8% 7.6%
Transport & communication 30.0% 44.0% 59.2% 13.0% 13.5%
Commercial & Trade & Service 15.0% 11.6% 9.7% 39.4% 31.4%
Government service 35.9% 25.0% 20.1% 25.7% 20.6%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: International Monetary Fund (2004 to 2007) , original source is KRG- Ministry of Planning
The above table contributions from 2004 to 2007 referred “Regional Development Strategy 2013 – 2017”
The contributions in 2011 are Kurdistan investment fact sheet by KRG Investment Board
(3) Investment
a) After 2003, the region succeeded to attract foreign and local investors due to the promising and
diverse investment opportunities by the political and security stability. It was achieved through
enacting “Investment Law No. 4 of 2006”. This law is changed in “Regional Development
Strategy 2013 – 2017”, and it brings new investment opportunities.
b) KRG Board of Investment (BOI) statistics indicate that the capital funds invested in the Region in
2006 reached US$ 438 million. And the investment rose to US$ 4,844 million in 2010. After 2011,
the decline of foreign investments caused by the economic crisis experienced by many countries.
2-7
c) Regarding sectoral investment, the accumulative investment of Housing sector was US$ 9,080
million from Aug 1st 2006 to Feb 15th 2012 and Industry sector was US$ 3,191 million in the
same periods. The third was Trade sector with US$ 2,476 million.
Table 2.1.10 Investment capital funds from 2006 to 2011 in Kurdistan

Sectors USD Million ID Billion
2006 438 526
2007 3,963 4,639
2008 1,922 4,760
2009 3,967 4,771
2010 4,844 5,812
2011 2,868 3,441
Total 18,002 23,949
Source: Board of Investment of KRG
Table 2.1.11 Accumulative investment from Ag 1st 2006 to Feb 15th 2012 in Kurdistan
Sectors Investment Contribution
USD million %
Trade 2,476 13.1
Banks 740 3.9
Health 320 1.7
Industry 3,191 16.8
Tourism 1,656 8.8
Communication 659 3.5
Education 426 2.3
Agriculture 271 1.4
Housing 9,080 48.0
Services& others 96 1.1
Total 18,915 100.0
Source: Board of Investment of KRG
(4) Macro economy policies

According to “Regional Development Strategy for Kurdistan 2013 – 2017”, the main policies on
macro economy in the next five years are as follows;
a) Goal of the policies

a1) Improving economic environment and enhancing balanced development at regional and
sectoral levels
a2) Improving business environment and supporting professional safety and security
a3) Enhancing investment, aimed to support economic comprehensive development policies.
a4) Increasing trade volume and supporting exports.
b) Achievement Indicators for the goal

b1) Increase of 8 % per year in the growth of national income within 5 years. GDP per capita is
estimated with 5.6 % per year in the next years. However, (GDP forecast of the JICA Survey
Team from 2013 to 2020 are described in the following table.)
b2) Increased number of licensed businesses in all fields by 15 % annually.
b3) Heightened competitiveness of the regions, aimed to create new economic projects, based on
reduced construction costs and minimized project execution time, ensuring that these
indicators will be less than the corresponding figures of Iraq by 2013 and of the neighboring
countries by 2017.
2-8
b4) Increased investment rates, in relation to economy (total annual GDP) to go up to 20 % within
five years.
b5) Investment map prepared and developed during the first year of the strategy implementation,
then publicized to interested persons, in addition to promoted recommended projects contained
thereat.
b6) The region's share of the federal investment projects increased to approximately 20 % within
five years, and maintained.
b7) The ground for starting exports prepared, aimed to support the economy at progressive rates
within a five-year period.
b8) Increasing the expenditure of tourists in Kurdistan from US$ 320 million in 2009 to US$ 1.5
billion (ID 1 trillion and ID 800 billion) by 2017.
b9) Increased rate of mining and extracting-based economic activities, and related metal industry
to over 25 % of overall industrial contribution to GDP, within a period of five years.
Table 2.1.12 Real GDP and GDP per capita of Kurdistan

Population GDP and GDP per capita US dollar
million Growth Real GDP Growth Per capita Growth Real GDP Per capita
% ID billion % ID 1000 % USD USD
at 2005 p million
2005 4.10 11,186 2,728 8,200 2,000
2006 4.20 2.4 11,526 3.0 2,744 0.6 8,450 2,012
2007 4.30 2.4 13,948 21.0 3,243 18.2 10,226 2,378
2008 4.40 2.3 17,754 27.3 4,035 24.4 13,016 2,958
2009 4.80 9.1 15,686 -11.6 3,268 -19.0 11,500 2,396
2010 5.40 12.5 19,210 22.5 3,557 8.8 14,084 2,608
2011 5.50 2.6 22,543 17.4 4,099 15.2 16,527 3,005
2012 5.64 2.6 24,049 6.7 4,219 2.9 17,631 3,093
2013 5.79 2.6 25,978 8.0 4,434 5.1 19,046 3,251
2014 5.94 2.6 28,063 8.0 4,660 5.1 20,574 3,417
2015 6.09 2.6 30,315 8.0 4,898 5.1 22,225 3,591
2016 6.25 2.6 32,748 8.0 5,148 5.1 24,009 3,774
2017 6.44 3.0 35,376 8.0 5,410 5.1 25,935 3,967
2018 6.63 3.0 37,851 7.0 5,632 4.1 27,750 4,129
2019 6.83 3.0 40,499 7.0 5,863 4.1 29,692 4,298
2020 7.04 3.0 43,333 7.0 6,103 4.1 31,769 4,475
15/12 2.6 8.0 5.1 8.0 5.1
20/15 2.9 7.4 4.5 7.4 4.5
20/12 2.8 7.6 4.7 7.6 4.7
Note: Exchange rate is 1363 ID/ USD in 2005
Note: GDP per capita with 5.6 % from 2013 to 2020 refers “Regional Development Strategy 2013 - 2017”
2-9
2.2 Electricity Tariff System
2.2.1 Electricity Tariff System & Subsidy
(1) Current power tariffs

Tariff system of Kurdistan is as the following table as of May 2013. The tariff system has been not
changed since 2007. The tariffs are categorized by power consumption in business sector. As business
sector Domestic (7 categories), Commercial (6 categories), Industry (4 categories), Agriculture (Flat),）
Government (Government, Party, Street light and Religious) are settled. When picking up the
outstanding points of the tariff system, the category tariffs in Domestic and Commercial sectors
become higher in line with the power consumption level, however, the tariffs in Industry sector are set
by power voltage class and Agriculture and Government sectors are flat tariff to all consumers in the
sectors.
Table 2.2.1 Tariff system of RMEK (as of May 2013)

Sector Category Tariff Subsidy Cost
Category kWh / Month ID / kWh ￠/kWh % ID / kWh ￠/kWh ID / kWh ￠/kWh
Domestic D- 1 1 - 450 15 1.3 92 172.5 15.0 187.5 16.3
D- 2 451 - 900 20 1.7 89 161.8 13.8 181.8 15.5
D- 3 901 - 1500 35 2.9 81 149.2 12.4 184.2 15.3
D- 4 1501 - 2100 60 5.0 68 127.5 10.6 187.5 15.6
D- 5 2101 - 3000 75 6.3 60 112.5 9.5 187.5 15.8
D- 6 3001 - 5000 150 12.6 21 39.9 3.3 189.9 15.9
D- 7 5001 - 200 16.8 -6 -11.3 -1.0 188.7 15.8
Average 39 3.3 79 146.3 12.4 185.4 15.7
Commercial C- 1 1 - 600 25 2.1 87 167.3 14.1 192.3 16.2
C- 2 601 - 900 35 2.9 81 149.2 12.4 184.2 15.3
C- 3 901 - 1500 50 4.2 74 142.3 12.0 192.3 16.2
C- 4 1501 - 3000 60 5.0 68 127.5 10.6 187.5 15.6
C- 5 3001 - 5000 80 6.7 58 110.5 9.3 190.5 16.0
C- 6 5001 - 90 7.6 52 97.5 8.2 187.5 15.8
Average 57 4.8 70 132.6 11.1 189.4 15.9
Industry I- 1 0.416kV 60 5.0 68 127.5 10.6 187.5 15.6
I- 2 11kv 50 4.2 74 142.3 12.0 192.3 16.2
I- 3 33kv 30 2.5 84 157.5 13.1 187.5 15.6
I- 4 132kv 20 1.7 89 161.8 13.8 181.8 15.5
Average 60 5.0 68 127.6 10.6 187.5 15.6
Agriculture Flat 30 2.5 84 157.5 13.1 187.5 15.6
Governmental Government Flat 60 5.0 68 127.5 10.6 187.5 15.6

Party Flat 60 5.0 68 127.5 10.6 187.5 15.6
Light Flat 60 5.0 68 127.5 10.6 187.5 15.6
Religious Flat 60 5.0 68 127.5 10.6 187.5 15.6
Average 60 5.0 68 127.5 10.6 187.5 15.6
Average Domestic 39 3.3 79 146.3 12.4 185.4 15.7
Commercial 57 4.8 70 132.6 11.1 189.4 15.9
Industry 60 5.0 68 127.6 10.6 187.5 15.6
Agriculture 30 2.5 84 157.5 13.1 187.5 15.6
Government 60 5.0 68 127.5 10.6 187.5 15.6
Average 45 3.8 76 141.4 11.9 186.2 15.7
Source: RMEK
The following table shows the average tariffs for business sectors and whole Kurdistan. The tariffs are
the weighted average values by power consumption in 2012. As the result, Kurdistan average tariff is
3.8￠/kWh (45 ID/kWh), and business tariffs are arranged from lower to higher.
2-10
Table 2.2.2 Sectoral average power tariffs in 2012 in Kurdistan

￠/kWh ID/kWh
Agriculture 2.5 30
Domestic 3.3 39
Commercial 4.8 57
Industry 5.0 60
Government 5.0 60
(2) Power costs and subsidy

According to the data of RMEK, even though there are some differences in the tariff categories, the
range of the power cost in Kurdistan is located between 15￠/kWh (176 ID/kWh) and 16￠/kWh (187
kWh). Other hand, D-1 category (1~450 kWh) in domestic sector is 1.3￠/kWh (15 ID/kWh), the
difference between the tariff and the cost is filled by subsidy from Ministry of Finance in Kurdistan.
And the subsidy rate reaches 92 % (it is complement of “1.3￠/ kWh ÷ 16.3 ￠/kWh”). It is the
highest subsidy in the tariff system.
Table 2.2.3 Costs and Subsidy of RMEK in 2012

Sector Category Revenue Subsidy Cost
Rank kWh / Month ID million US$ 1000 ID million US$ 1000 ID million US$ 1000
Power tariff D- 1 1 - 450 29,780 25,809 342,468 296,806 372,248 322,615
Domestic D- 2 451 - 900 38,833 33,008 314,197 267,068 353,031 300,076
D- 3 901 - 1500 56,170 46,541 239,461 198,411 295,631 244,952
D- 4 1501 - 2100 50,623 42,186 107,574 89,645 158,197 131,831
D- 5 2101 - 3000 44,587 37,453 66,880 56,179 111,467 93,632
D- 6 3001 - 5000 56,883 47,782 15,121 12,701 72,004 60,483
D- 7 5001 - 13,617 11,438 -239 -201 12,846 10,791
Total 290,493 244,217 1,085,462 920,609 1,375,424 1,164,380
Commercial C- 1 1 - 600 4,959 4,166 33,189 27,879 38,149 32,045
consumption C- 2 601 - 900 2,122 1,758 9,047 7,496 11,170 9,255
C- 3 901 - 1500 4,206 3,533 11,971 10,055 16,177 13,588
C- 4 1501 - 3000 7,144 5,954 15,181 12,651 22,326 18,605
C- 5 3001 - 5000 6,308 5,283 8,711 7,295 15,019 12,578
C- 6 5001 - 16,357 13,813 17,721 14,964 34,078 28,777
Total 41,097 34,507 95,821 80,342 136,918 114,848
Industry I- 1 0.416kV 65,819 54,849.1 139,865 116,554 205,684 171,403
consumption I- 2 11kv 368 309.1 1,047 880 1,415 1,189
I- 3 33kv 0 0.0 0 0 0 0
I- 4 132kv 0 0.0 0 0 0 0
Total 66,187 55,158 140,912 117,434 207,099 172,592
Agriculture Flat 6,281 5,234 32,976 27,480 39,257 32,714
consumption 0 0 0 0 0.0 0
Governmental Government Flat 74,245 61,871 157,770 131,475 232,015 193,346
consumption Party Flat 279 233 593 494 873 727
Light Flat 1,354 1,128 2,877 2,397 4,231 3,525
Religious Flat 2,031 1,693 4,316 3,597 6,347 5,289
Total 77,909 64,924 165,556 137,964 243,465 202,888
Total 481,967 404,040 1,520,727 1,283,828 2,002,163 1,687,422
Source Calculated by JICA Survey Team based on the data of RMEK
Adversely, the tariff being higher than the cost is only D-7 category (over 5001 kWh) in domestic
sector. The tariff is 16.8￠/kWh（200 ID/kWh）and the cost is 15.8￠/kWh (188.7 ID/kWh). In the
categorized tariff system, it is only one category to exceed the own cost.
Other words, D-7 category compensates the deficits of other categories in the tariff system. The tariffs
in all sectors are subsidized by Kurdistan government. The subsidies for the tariffs present the
Kurdistan governmental policies for livelihood protection and promotion of industry. The average
subsidies by business sector described in descending order are as the following table.
2-11
Table 2.2.4 Subsidy to power tariff by sector in Kurdistan

￠ / kWh ID / kWh
Agriculture 13.1 158
Domestic 12.4 146
Commercial 11.1 133
Industry 10.6 128
Government 10.6 128
According to the data of RMEK, the difference between the sales and the cost in 2012 is US$ 1,283
million (ID 1,521 billion), and it is complemented by KRG as subsidy. The following table shows the
subsidy by business sector in descending order of the subsidies.
Table 2.2.5 Subsidy to power tariff by sector in Kurdistan

USD million ID Billion
Domestic 921 1,085
Government 138 166
Industry 117 141
Commercial 80 96
Agriculture 27 33
Total 1,283 1,521
2.2.2 Electricity Sales Revenue
(1) Power sales

According to the report of RMEK, the sale volume of RMEK in 2012 was 10,752 GWh (12,227 MW),
and the sale volume billed by RMEK was 7,293 GWh (833 MW).
It means that 32 % of the power sales are not billed to the consumers. While the sending out power in
2012 was 1,833 MW, so sale volume of 1,227 MW is equivalence to 67 % of the sending out power
with 1,833 MW. And it means that 33 % of the sending out power is losses. The following table is
power sales and losses by governorate.
Table 2.2.6 Power sales and losses by governorate in Kurdistan

Erbil Sulaymani Duhok Total
Sales GWh 3,892 4,510 2,350 10,752
MW 444 515 268 1,227
Billed power GWh 2,933 2,565 1,795 7,293
MW 335 293 205 833
Distributed power MW 665 755 413 1,833
Losses % 33 32 35 33
Note Loss=100- Sales(MW) / Distributed power(MW)*100
Source: RMEK
The power loss rates by sector are 30 % in Domestic use, 35 % in Commercial sector, 64 % in
Industry sector, 31 % in Agriculture sector and 13 % in Government sector. The loss rate in Industry
sector is comparatively higher than others. The loss rates by governorate are as follows;
2-12
Table 2.2.7 Regional sale power and billed power by sector in Kurdistan
Sector Erbil Sulaymani Duhok Total
MWh % MWh % MWh % MWh %
Domestic Sales power 2,644,515 2,887,966 1,884,879 7,417,360
Billed power 1,983,730 25.0 1,761,448 39.0 1,425,659 24.4 5,170,837 30.3
Commercial Sales power 376,640 174,395 171,761 722,796
Billed power 238,341 36.7 104,113 40.3 123,054 28.4 465,508 35.6
Industry Sales power 77,415 988,610 38,315 1,104,340
Billed power 53,788 30.5 317,996 67.8 19,843 48.2 391,627 64.5
Agriculture Sales power 136,457 51,356 21,557 209,370
Billed power 90,085 34.0 40,207 21.7 12,812 40.6 143,104 31.7
Governmental Sales power 656,903 407,628 233,949 1,298,480
Billed power 566,672 13.7 341,301 16.3 214,177 8.5 1,122,150 13.6
Total Sales power 3,891,930 4,509,955 2,350,461 10,752,346
Billed power 2,932,616 24.6 2,565,065 43.1 1,795,545 23.6 7,293,226 32.2
Note: Percentage (%) =100- Billed power (MWh) /Sales power(MWh)*100
Source: RMEK
(2) Power sale amount

Power sale in Kurdistan 2012 was US$ 404 million (ID 484 Billion and the required cost for the
power supply was US$ 1,687 million (ID 2,002 Billion). Therefore, the subsidy for the cost
compensation was US$ 1,284 million (ID 1,521 Billion). The amount of 76 % of the total cost was
covered by subsidy. The sales and cost by governorate is as the following table.
Table 2.2.8 Revenue and cost in Kurdistan in 2012

Sector Revenue Subsidy Cost
ID billion USD million ID billion USD million ID billion USD million
Domestic Sales 290 244 1,085 921 1,375 1,164
Billed 203 170
Commercial Sales 41 35 96 80 137 115
Billed 26 22
Industry Sales 66 55 141 117 207 173
Billed 23 20
Agriculture Sales 6 5 33 27 39 33
Billed 4 4
Governmental Sales 78 65 166 138 243 203
Billed 67 56
Total Sales 482 404 1,521 1,284 2,002 1,687
Billed 327 274
Source: RMEK
2-13
Table 2.2.9 Power demand by governorate in Kurdistan in 2012

Sector Category Erbil Sulaymani Duhok Total
Rank kWh / Month MWh MW % MWh MW % MWh MW % MWh MW %
Domestic D- 1 1 - 450 208,264 24 5.4 1,626,782 186 36.1 150,277 17 6.4 1,985,323 227 18.5
D- 2 451 - 900 584,968 67 15.0 854,011 97 18.9 502,690 57 21.4 1,941,669 222 18.1
D- 3 901 - 1500 715,505 82 18.4 282,529 32 6.3 606,822 69 25.8 1,604,856 183 14.9
D- 4 1501 - 2100 428,044 49 11.0 82,866 9 1.8 332,806 38 14.2 843,716 96 7.8
D- 5 2101 - 3000 371,070 42 9.5 25,754 3 0.6 197,666 23 8.4 594,490 68 5.5
D- 6 3001 - 5000 289,711 33 7.4 8,480 1 0.2 81,029 9 3.4 379,220 43 3.5
D- 7 5001 - 46,953 5 1.2 7,544 1 0.2 13,589 2 0.6 68,086 8 0.6
D-Total Sales power 2,644,515 302 67.9 2,887,966 330 64.0 1,884,879 215 80.2 7,417,360 847 69.0
Billed power 1,983,730 226 1,761,448 201 1,425,659 163 5,170,837 590
Commercial C- 1 1 - 600 52,538 6 1.3 107,960 12 2.4 37,876 4 1.6 198,374 23 1.8
C- 2 601 - 900 24,141 3 0.6 18,358 2 0.4 18,136 2 0.8 60,635 7 0.6
C- 3 901 - 1500 38,745 4 1.0 18,276 2 0.4 27,098 3 1.2 84,119 10 0.8
C- 4 1501 - 3000 68,010 8 1.7 15,839 2 0.4 35,221 4 1.5 119,070 14 1.1
C- 5 3001 - 5000 54,894 6 1.4 5,354 1 0.1 18,601 2 0.8 78,849 9 0.7
C- 6 5001 - 138,312 16 3.6 8,608 1 0.2 34,829 4 1.5 181,749 21 1.7
C-Total Sales power 376,640 43 9.7 174,395 20 3.9 171,761 20 7.3 722,796 83 6.7
Billed power 238,341 27 104,113 12 123,054 14 465,508 53
Industry I- 1 0.416kV 72,992 8 1.9 988,610 113 21.9 35379 4 1.5 1,096,981 125 10.2
I- 2 11kv 4,423 1 0.1 0 0.0 2936 0 0.1 7,359 1 0.1
I- 3 33kv 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0
I- 4 132kv 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0
I-Total Sales power 77,415 9 2.0 988,610 113 21.9 38,315 4 1.6 1,104,340 126 10.3
Billed power 53,788 6 317,996 36 19,843 2 391,627 45
Agriculture Sales power 136,457 16 3.5 51,356 6 1.1 21,557 2 0.9 209,370 24 1.9
Billed power 90,085 10 40,207 5 12,812 1 143,104 16
Governmental Government Flat 608,152 69 15.6 407,628 47 9.0 221,632 25 9.4 1,237,412 141 11.5
Party Flat 4,654 1 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 4,654 1 0.0
Light Flat 22,563 3 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 22,563 3 0.2
Religious Flat 21,534 2 0.6 0 0.0 12,317 1 0.5 33,851 4 0.3
I-Total Sales power 656,903 75 16.9 407,628 47 9.0 233,949 27 10.0 1,298,480 148 12.1
Billed power 566,672 65 341,301 39 214,177 24 1,122,150 128
Total Sales power 3,891,930 444 100.0 4,509,955 515 100.0 2,350,461 268 100.0 10,752,346 1,227 100.0
Billed power 2,932,616 335 2,565,065 293 1,795,545 205 7,293,226 833
Distributed power MW 665 755 413 1,833
Distributed power % 67 68 65 67
Power Loses % 33 32 35 33
Source: RMEK
2-14
Table 2.2.10 Sales revenue & costs by governorate in Kurdistan in 2012

Erbil Sulaymani Duhok Total
Sector Category Revenue Subsidy Cost Revenue Subsidy Cost Revenue Subsidy Cost Revenue Subsidy Cost
Rank kWh / Month ID million US$ 1000 ID million US$ 1000 ID million US$ 1000 ID million US$ 1000 ID million US$ 1000 ID million US$ 1000 ID million US$ 1000 ID million US$ 1000 ID million US$ 1000 ID million US$ 1000 ID million US$ 1000 ID million US$ 1000
Domestic D- 1 1 - 450 3,124 2,707 35,926 31,135 39,050 33,843 24,402 21,148 280,620 243,204 305,022 264,352 2,254 1,954 25,923 22,466 28,177 24,420 29,780 25,809 342,468 296,806 372,248 322,615
D- 2 451 - 900 11,699 9,944 94,658 80,460 106,358 90,404 17,080 14,518 138,195 117,465 155,275 131,984 10,054 8,546 81,344 69,143 91,398 77,688 38,833 33,008 314,197 267,068 353,031 300,076
D- 3 901 - 1500 25,043 20,750 106,761 88,459 131,804 109,209 9,889 8,193 42,156 34,930 52,045 43,123 21,239 17,598 90,544 75,022 111,783 92,620 56,170 46,541 239,461 198,411 295,631 244,952
D- 4 1501 - 2100 25,683 21,402 54,576 45,480 80,258 66,882 4,972 4,143 10,565 8,805 15,537 12,948 19,968 16,640 42,433 35,361 62,401 52,001 50,623 42,186 107,574 89,645 158,197 131,831
D- 5 2101 - 3000 27,830 23,377 41,745 35,066 69,576 58,444 1,932 1,623 2,897 2,434 4,829 4,056 14,825 12,453 22,237 18,679 37,062 31,132 44,587 37,453 66,880 56,179 111,467 93,632
D- 6 3001 - 5000 43,457 36,504 11,552 9,703 55,008 46,207 1,272 1,068 338 284 1,610 1,353 12,154 10,210 3,231 2,714 15,385 12,924 56,883 47,782 15,121 12,701 72,004 60,483
D- 7 5001 - 9,391 7,888 0 0 8,859 7,442 1,509 1,267 -85 -72 1,423 1,196 2,718 2,283 -154 -129 2,564 2,154 13,617 11,438 -239 -201 12,846 10,791
Total Sales power 146,226 122,573 345,218 290,303 490,912 412,430 61,055 51,961 474,686 407,049 535,741 459,011 83,212 69,683 265,559 223,256 348,771 292,939 290,493 244,217 1,085,462 920,609 1,375,424 1,164,380
Billed power 109,689 91,946 37,239 31,693 62,939 52,706 202,510 170,250
Commercial C- 1 1 - 600 1,313 1,103 8,790 7,384 10,103 8,487 2,699 2,267 18,063 15,173 20,762 17,440 947 795 6,337 5,323 7,284 6,118 4,959 4,166 33,189 27,879 38,149 32,045
C- 2 601 - 900 845 700 3,602 2,985 4,447 3,685 643 532 2,739 2,270 3,382 2,802 635 526 2,706 2,242 3,341 2,768 2,122 1,758 9,047 7,496 11,170 9,255
C- 3 901 - 1500 1,937 1,627 5,514 4,632 7,451 6,259 914 768 2,601 2,185 3,515 2,952 1,355 1,138 3,856 3,239 5,211 4,377 4,206 3,533 11,971 10,055 16,177 13,588
C- 4 1501 - 3000 4,081 3,401 8,671 7,226 12,752 10,627 950 792 2,019 1,683 2,970 2,475 2,113 1,761 4,491 3,742 6,604 5,503 7,144 5,954 15,181 12,651 22,326 18,605
C- 5 3001 - 5000 4,392 3,678 6,064 5,079 10,456 8,757 428 359 591 495 1,020 854 1,488 1,246 2,055 1,721 3,543 2,967 6,308 5,283 8,711 7,295 15,019 12,578
C- 6 5001 - 12,448 10,512 13,485 11,388 25,934 21,899 775 654 839 709 1,614 1,363 3,135 2,647 3,396 2,868 6,530 5,515 16,357 13,813 17,721 14,964 34,078 28,777
Total Sales power 25,016 21,021 46,127 38,692 71,143 59,713 6,409 5,372 26,853 22,514 33,262 27,886 9,673 8,114 22,841 19,135 32,513 27,249 41,097 34,507 95,821 80,342 136,918 114,848
Billed power 15,830 13,302 3,826 3,207 6,930 5,813 26,468 22,224
Industry I- 1 0.416kV 4,380 3,649.6 9,306 7,755 13,686 11,405 59,317 49,431 126,048 105,040 185,364 154,470 2,123 1,769 4,511 3,759 6,634 5,528 65,819 54,849.1 139,865 116,554 205,684 171,403
I- 2 11kv 221 185.8 629 529 851 714 0 0 0 0 0 0 147 123 418 351 565 474 368 309.1 1,047 880 1,415 1,189
I- 3 33kv 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0
I- 4 132kv 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0
Billed power 3,197 2,665 19,080 15,900 1,175 980 23,472 19,560
Agriculture Sales power 4,094 3,411 21,492 17,910 25,586 21,321 1,541 1,284 8,089 6,740 9,629 8,024 647 539 3,395 2,829 4,042 3,368 6,281 5,234 32,976 27,480 39,257 32,714
consumption Billed power 2,703 2,252 1,206 1,005 384 320 4,293 3,578
Governmental Government Flat 36,489 30,408 77,539 64,616 114,029 95,024 24,458 20,381 51,973 43,310 76,430 63,692 13,298 11,082 28,258 23,548 41,556 34,630 74,245 61,871 157,770 131,475 232,015 193,346
Party Flat 279 233 593 494 873 727 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 279 233 593 494 873 727
Light Flat 1,354 1,128 2,877 2,397 4,231 3,525 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,354 1,128 2,877 2,397 4,231 3,525
Religious Flat 1,292 1,077 2,746 2,288 4,038 3,365 0 0 0 0 0 0 739 616 1,570 1,309 2,309 1,925 2,031 1,693 4,316 3,597 6,347 5,289
Billed power 34,000 28,334 20,478 17,065 12,851 10,709 67,329 56,108
Total Sales power 219,351 183,686 506,528 424,986 725,347 608,225 152,778 128,429 687,648 584,654 840,426 713,083 109,838 91,925 326,552 274,188 436,390 366,114 481,967 404,040 1,520,727 1,283,828 2,002,163 1,687,422
Billed power 165,283 138,409 86,894 73,045 83,906 70,223 326,914 274,057
Unit / Kwh Domestic 55.3 4.6 130.5 11.0 185.6 15.6 21.1 1.8 164.4 14.1 185.5 15.9 44.1 3.7 140.9 11.8 185.0 15.5 39.2 3.3 146.3 12.4 185.4 15.7
Commercial 66.4 5.6 122.5 10.3 188.9 15.9 36.7 3.1 154.0 12.9 190.7 16.0 56.3 4.7 133.0 11.1 189.3 15.9 56.9 4.8 132.6 11.1 189.4 15.9
Industry 59.4 5.0 128.3 10.7 187.8 15.7 60.0 5.0 127.5 10.6 187.5 15.6 59.2 4.9 128.6 10.7 187.9 15.7 59.9 5.0 127.6 10.6 187.5 15.6
Agriculture 30.0 2.5 157.5 13.1 187.5 15.6 30.0 2.5 157.5 13.1 187.5 15.6 30.0 2.5 157.5 13.1 187.5 15.6 30.0 2.5 157.5 13.1 187.5 15.6
Government 60.0 5.0 127.5 10.6 187.5 15.6 60.0 5.0 127.5 10.6 187.5 15.6 60.0 5.0 127.5 10.6 187.5 15.6 60.0 5.0 127.5 10.6 187.5 15.6
Average 56.4 4.7 130.1 10.9 186.4 15.6 33.9 2.8 152.5 13.0 186.3 15.8 46.7 3.9 138.9 11.7 185.7 15.6 44.8 3.8 141.4 11.9 186.2 15.7
Source: RMEK
2-15
2.2.3 Restructuring of Tariff System
(1) Kind of subsidy and restructuring

The over 70 % of the total cost in Kurdistan power system is covered by the Governmental subsidy.
According to “Public Policy on Subsidies Iraq Ministry of Electricity” by USAID in 2005, the kinds
of the subsidy for the power sector in Iraq are classified as the following table.
Table 2.2.11 Subsidy types for power tariff in Kurdistan

Subsidy Received by Paid by
1) Capital expenditure subsidy All customers (through MOE) Ministry of Finance
2) Fuel price subsidy All customers (through MOE) Ministry of Oil
3) Inter-class subsidy Domestic, Government Industrial, Commercial,
among business sectors customers Agricultural sectors
4)Intra-class subsidy Domestic, Commercial, Highest use domestic,
among consumers in a sector Government customers Commercial,
5) Operating cost subsidy All customers (through MOE) Ministry of Finance
Note: “Subsidy” in the title line shows the kinds of subsidies, “Received by” shows beneficiary from the subsidy and “Paid by” shows payer of
the subsidy
Source: “Public Policy on Subsidies Iraq Ministry of Electricity” by USAID
When looking at the tariff system of Kurdistan as of March 2013, “Inter-Class Subsidy”, and
“Intra-Class Subsidy” in the above table has been already solved. It seemed that “Capital expenditure
subsidy”, “Fuel price subsidy” and “Operating cost subsidy” are continued, even though as of April
2013. The recommendations of USAID are mentioned as the following sentences after disconnecting
Iraqi poverty policy from the power business.
The Ministry of Electricity should not be in the welfare business. A subsidy for the poor should
be paid by the central government though the social security program designed and
administered by the government. Either a voucher scheme or direct payments are potentially
attractive options.
Source : “Public Policy on Subsidies Iraq Ministry of Electricity” by USAID
The above recommendations can be applied to RMEK.
(2) Recommendation for tariff system

Parsons Brinckerhoff（PB）and RMEK published ”Master plan for the Electricity sector” in Nov 2009.
In the master plan, the following recommendations on the subsidy are mentioned.
The tariffs should cover the full operating and investment costs for the supply of electricity in
KRG by 2013. This is required by estimating the annual operating and fixed costs of the RMEK
between 2009 and 2015. If subsidies are to be put in place, they will have to be financed from
the country common purse. This common purse is limited and is required for all public sector
projects. Thus subsidies for electricity will mean a delay in, or cancellation of, other
infrastructure projects such as health, education and transportation. Subsidizing tariffs also
encourages the non-economic use of electricity such as excessive consumption and the use of
less efficient devices for cooking, lighting, cooling and entertainment. This has both economic
and perhaps more importantly, environmental negative impacts.
Source: “Master plan for the Electricity sector” in Nov 2009.
Additionally, the following tariff system from 2009 to 2015 is recommended to RMEK
2-16
Table 2.2.12 Power tariffs proposed in “Master plan for the Electricity sector” in Kurdistan
(Unit ID / kWh)
Sector Base 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
kWh / Month ID / kWh ID / kWh ID / kWh ID / kWh ID / kWh ID / kWh ID / kWh ID / kWh
Domestic 1 - 450 15 25 35 45 55 65 65 65
451 - 900 20 40 60 85 110 130 130 130
901 - 1500 35 55 80 100 125 145 145 145
1501 - 2100 60 80 95 110 130 145 145 145
2101 - 3000 75 90 105 115 130 145 145 145
3001 - 5000 150 150 150 150 150 145 145 145
5001 - 200 190 180 170 160 145 145 145
Commercial 1 - 600 25 35 45 55 65 75 75 75
601 - 900 35 45 55 65 70 75 75 75
901 - 1500 50 70 90 110 130 145 145 145
1501 - 3000 60 80 95 115 130 145 145 145
3001 - 5000 80 95 105 120 135 145 145 145
5001 - 90 100 110 120 135 145 145 145
Industry 0.416kV 60 75 90 115 125 140 140 140
11kv 50 65 80 95 115 135 135 135
33kv 30 50 70 90 110 130 130 130
132kv 20 40 60 80 100 120 120 120
Agriculture Flat 30 55 70 95 120 130 130 130
Governmental Flat 60 75 90 115 125 130 130 130
Note: Base year is actual tariff in 2007
Source: Master plan electricity sector Final report Vol 1 by RMEK and PB
Table 2.2.13 The power tariffs proposed in “Master plan for the Electricity sector” in Kurdistan
(￠ / kWh)
Sector Base 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
kWh / Month ￠/kWh ￠/kWh ￠/kWh ￠/kWh ￠/kWh ￠/kWh ￠/kWh ￠/kWh
Domestic 1 - 450 1.3 2.1 3.0 3.8 4.7 5.6 5.6 5.6
451 - 900 1.7 3.4 5.1 7.3 9.4 11.1 11.1 11.1
901 - 1500 3.0 4.7 6.8 8.5 10.7 12.4 12.4 12.4
1501 - 2100 5.1 6.8 8.1 9.4 11.1 12.4 12.4 12.4
2101 - 3000 6.4 7.7 9.0 9.8 11.1 12.4 12.4 12.4
3001 - 5000 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.4 12.4 12.4
5001 - 17.1 16.2 15.4 14.5 13.7 12.4 12.4 12.4
Commercial 1 - 600 2.1 3.0 3.8 4.7 5.6 6.4 6.4 6.4
601 - 900 3.0 3.8 4.7 5.6 6.0 6.4 6.4 6.4
901 - 1500 4.3 6.0 7.7 9.4 11.1 12.4 12.4 12.4
1501 - 3000 5.1 6.8 8.1 9.8 11.1 12.4 12.4 12.4
3001 - 5000 6.8 8.1 9.0 10.3 11.5 12.4 12.4 12.4
5001 - 7.7 8.5 9.4 10.3 11.5 12.4 12.4 12.4
Industry 0.416kV 5.1 6.4 7.7 9.8 10.7 12.0 12.0 12.0
11kv 4.3 5.6 6.8 8.1 9.8 11.5 11.5 11.5
33kv 2.6 4.3 6.0 7.7 9.4 11.1 11.1 11.1
132kv 1.7 3.4 5.1 6.8 8.5 10.3 10.3 10.3
Agriculture 2.6 4.7 6.0 8.1 10.3 11.1 11.1 11.1
Government 5.1 6.4 7.7 9.8 10.7 11.1 11.1 11.1
Note: Base year is actual tariff in 2007
Source: This table is calculated from the above table by JICA Survey Team.
2-17
Nowadays, the subsidy system for power sector from governmental budgets is introduced in world wide.
And it is facts that some parts of power energy are used meaningless by the reason why lower power tariff
is set by the subsidy system.
The some subsidy system for the poor people is important policy for the governments in all countries.
When considering current energy problems and global warming issues, efficient power utilization are
sought to people in all countries.
For promoting the policy and consideration, it is sought that the power tariff system is introduced for
energy efficiency and conservation. In Kurdistan, it should be considered to introduce new power tariff
system promoting energy efficiency and conservation.
2-18
Chapter 3
The Necessity and Validity of the Project

Chapter 3 The Necessity and Validity of the Project
3.1 Power Demand in Kurdistan
3.1.1 Current Power Demand and Supply
(1) Power demand and supply

According to RMEK, the need power demand grew by 17.1% per year for latest 5 years for
2007-2012.
The estimated need power demand reached 2,295 MW in 2012 from 914 MW in 2007. When looking
at the total power supply in Kurdistan regions over the past 5 years from 2007 to 2012, the power
supply is increased from 487 MW in 2007 to 1,833 MW in 2012. The balance between the two is
improved to 20 % deficiency rate in 2012 from 47 % deficiency rate in 2007. It means that domestic
power supply is increased with extremely higher growth than demand growth. The following table
provides potential power demand and power supply including power import from 2005 to 2012.
Table 3.1.1 Power demand potential and produced power

Need demand Supply Power Balance Balance rate
Year
MW MW MW %
2005 742 348 -394 -53
2006 824 487 -337 -41
2007 914 487 -427 -47
2008 1,037 500 -537 -52
2009 1,156 813 -343 -30
2010 1,603 1,046 -557 -35
2011 1,796 1,435 -361 -20
2012 2,295 1,833 -462 -20
12/07 20.2 % 30.4%
Note Need demand in 2012 is estimated by JICA Survey Team
Source: “Regional Development Strategy for Kurdistan 2013-2017”, Original data from RMEK
Regarding imported power from neighboring countries, the power from Turkey during 2005～2011
has been imported with the range from 100 MW to 150 MW. However, the imported power in 2011
extremely went down. While, the imported power from Iran in 2008 came to 4.4 MW, and increased
to 6.8 MW in 2011.
Table 3.1.2 Power generation and import

Generation Import Supply
Year Kurdistan Turkey Iran Federal Total
MW MW MW MW MW
2005 227.0 121.4 0 0 348.4
2006 197.8 156.1 0 133.6 487.5
2007 148.9 144.5 0 193.4 486.8
2008 227.8 102.7 4.4 165.0 499.9
2009 577.5 137.4 5.2 92.7 812.8
2010 882.0 146.0 5.0 13.0 1046.0
2011 1,516 4.7 6.8 -92.1 1435.4
11/06 50.3% 24.1%
3-1
Although the imported power from the federal government was 133.6 MW in 2006. However, it is
declined to 13 MW in 2010. In 2011, Kurdistan exports the power with 92 MW to Federal area. In
Kurdistan, the power supply from domestic generation was increased with 50 % per year from 2006 to
2012.
Table 3.1.3 Peak load in Kurdistan

Erbil Duhok Sulaymani Total
Year
MW MW MW MW
2005 408 353 410 1,171
2006 546 421 490 1,457
2007 613 501 625 1,739
2008 694 538 657 1,889
2009 744 559 793 2,096
2010 867 610 825 2,302
2011 975 690 1,141 2,806
2012 1,143 856 1,280 3,279
12/07 13.2% 11.3% 15.4% 13.5%
Source: RMEK Annual report 2012
3.1.2 Power Distribution by Region
The distributed rates of the power supply in 2012 to the governorates were 36.3 % in Erbil, 22.5 % in
Duhok and 41.2 % in Sulaymani. The rates are not difference so much in the past three years. It means
that the power is fairly supplied to all governorates in Kurdistan governorates.
Table 3.1.4 Power distribution by governorate in Kurdistan

Erbil Duhok Sulaymani (Kirkuk) Total
Year
MW MW MW MW MW
2010 387 222 436 0 1,045
2011 522 326 560 (92) 1,500
2012 665 413 755 1,833
Share
2010 37.0% 21.2% 41.7% 0.0% 100.0%
2011 34.8% 21.7% 37.3% -6.1% 100.0%
2012 36.3% 22.5% 41.2% 0.0% 100.0%
The distributed power percentage by business sector shows that the highest percentage was Residential
use with 68 % in Erbil, 80 % in Duhok and 64 % in Sulaymani in 2012. Regarding Industry sector,
Sulaymani has the share with 22% in 2012, however, Erbil and Duhok were around 2 %, it is smaller than
Sulaymani comparatively. It can be considered that Industry sector is developed in Sulaymani more than
Erbil and Duhok governorates in Kurdistan.
Table 3.1.5 Regional power supply percentage by business sector

2010 Residential Industry Commercial Government Agriculture Total
Erbil 68% 2.5% 8% 18% 4% 100%
Duhok 74.9% 3% 9% 13% 0.1% 100%
Sulaymani 69% 16% 4% 10% 1% 100%
2012 Residential Industry Commercial Government Agriculture Total
Erbil 67.9% 2.0% 9.7% 16.9% 3.5% 100%
Duhok 80.2% 1.6% 7.3% 10.0% 0.9% 100%
Sulaymani 64.0% 21.9% 3.9% 9.0% 1.1% 100%
3-2
3.1.3 Power Demand Forecast
(1) Demand forecast by RMEK

The power demand forecasts and power supply plan of RMEK’s power policy described in Chapter
Six of in “Regional Development Strategy for Kurdistan 2013-2017” are in the following table.
Table 3.1.6 Power demand and supply forecasts of RMEK

RMEK forecast RMEK Plan
Balance
Year Demand Distribution Technical loss
MW MW MW MW
2005 742 348 52 -394
2006 824 487 73 -337
2007 914 487 73 -427
2008 1,037 500 75 537
2009 1,156 813 122 -343
2010 1,603 1,046 157 -557
2011 1,964 1,435 215 -529
2012 2,300 1,833 275 -667
2013 2576 2,214 332 -362
2014 2886 2,675 401 -211
2015 3231 3231 485 0
2016 3619 3619 543 0
2017 4,060 4,060 609 0
12/07 17.1% 30.4% 30.4%
17/12 12.0% 17.2% 20.9%
Note: Values from 2005 to 2012 are actuals after covered from peak to power demand.
Demand = 0.341kW/ person in 2010 Demand in 2017 = 0.341kW/person *(1+11/100)^7*Population
Demand include sectoral demand + Social loss + Technical loss
Distribution values include social loss and technical loss. Technical loss = Distribution * 15%
Distribution plan make well demand / supply balance in 2015 Balance = Distribution – Demand
Source: Regional Development Strategy for Kurdistan 2013-2017”
According to RMEK forecasting, the future power demand growth rate is 14.6 % per year from 2012
to 2017. As the actual demand growth rate was 17.1 % per year from 2007 to 2012, RMEK forecasts
that the growth rate in the next five years is higher than the past five years. While, the future power
supply (Power distribution + Social loss + Technical loss）outlook of RMEK is 20 % per year from
2012 to 2017, it is rather lower growth rate than the past five years with 30 % per year.
Other hand, RMEK provides the following future peak loads forecasts to the JICA Survey Team as
reference of the project.
Table 3.1.7 Future peak loads forecasts of RMEK

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 20/13
Peak （MW） 3,717 4,700 5,521 5,788 6,093 6,459 6,846 7,257 10.0%
Growth (%) 26.4 17.5 4.8 5.3 6.0 6.0 6.0
Source: RMEK
(2) Demand forecast up to 2020 by JICA Survey Team

Under the assumption of the potential power demand (needed demand) and actual power supply until
2012, JICA Survey Team implements power demand forecasts by using the following methodologies.
a) Use elasticity power demand growth rate to GDP growth rate.
b) Power demand are calculated by “GDP growth rate multiplied by the elasticity”.
c) Needed power has to be supplied with meeting the power demand up to 2015.
3-3
d) The power supply from 2016 to 2020 is increased in company with the power demand increase
during the years.
The results are as the following table. The Kurdistan power demand reaches 4,060 MW in 2017
(RMEK forecasts 5,800 MW as peak load in the year in their Master plan). And the power supply to
continue the shortage for many years becomes equivalence to the power demand in 2015, the power
supply increases to 4,060 MW in 2017 and 5,204 MW in 2020.
Table 3.1.8 Demand distribution forecast up to 2020

Real GDP Power demand Elasticity
Year
Billion ID million USD Growth % Forecast MW Growth % Power / GDP
2005 11,186 8,200 742
2006 11,526 8,450 3.0 824 11.1 3.6
2007 13,948 10,226 21.0 914 10.9 0.5
2008 17,754 13,016 27.3 1,037 13.5 0.5
2009 15,686 11,500 -11.6 1,156 11.5 -1.0
2010 19,210 14,084 22.5 1,603 38.7 1.7
2011 22,543 16,527 17.3 1,796 12.0 0.7
2012 24,049 17,631 6.7 2,300 28.1 4.2
2013 25,978 19,046 8.0 2,576 12.0 1.5
2014 28,063 20,574 8.0 2,886 12.0 1.5
2015 30,315 22,225 8.0 3,231 12.0 1.5
2016 32,748 24,009 8.0 3,619 12.0 1.5
2017 35,376 25,935 8.0 4,060 12.2 1.5
2018 37,851 27,750 7.0 4,486 10.5 1.5
2019 40,499 29,692 7.0 4,863 8.4 1.2
2020 43,333 31,769 7.0 5,204 7.0 1.0
12/07 11.5% 11.5% 20.3%
15/12 8.0% 8.0% 16.0%
20/15 7.4% 7.4% 10.5%
Note: Values from 2005 to 2012 are actuals and after 2013 are forecasts.
Real GDP is at 2005 price. Demand = Elasticity * GDP growth rate
3-4
Table 3.1.9 Power distribution forecast up to 2020

Power Demand Power distribution
Year Forecast Growth Forecast Growth Elasticity
MW % MW %
2005 742 348
2006 824 11.1 487 39.9 3.6
2007 914 10.9 487 0.0 0.0
2008 1,037 13.5 500 2.7 0.2
2009 1,156 11.5 813 62.6 5.5
2010 1,603 38.7 1,046 28.7 0.7
2011 1,796 12.0 1,435 37.2 3.1
2012 2,300 28.1 1,833 27.7 1.0
2013 2,576 12.0 2,214 20.8 1.7
2014 2,886 12.0 2,674 20.8 1.7
2015 3,231 12.0 3,231 20.8 1.7
2016 3,619 12.0 3,619 12.0 1.0
2017 4,060 12.2 4,060 12.2 1.0
2018 4,486 10.5 4,486 10.5 1.0
2019 4,863 8.4 4,863 8.4 1.0
2020 5,204 7.0 5,204 7.0 1.0
12/07 20.3% 30.4%
15/12 12.0% 20.8%
20/15 10.5% 10.5%
Note: Deficiency of distribution occurs during 2013～2014, however the deficiency are solved at 2015
Note: after 2015, the demand and distribution are the same trends.
Figure 3.1.1 RMEK and JICA Survey Team forecasts
Table 3.1.10 Power distribution per capita by JICA Survey Team

Power distribution Population Power per capita
Year
MW GWh million kWh / person
2012 1,833 16,057 5.7 2,817
2013 2,214 19,395 5.8 3,344
2014 2,674 23,424 6.0 3,904
2015 3,231 28,304 6.1 4,640
2016 3,619 31,702 6.3 5,032
2017 4,060 35,566 6.5 5,472
2018 4,486 39,297 6.7 5,865
2019 4,863 42,600 6.9 6,174
2020 5,204 45,587 7.1 6,421
20/12 13.9% 13.9% 2.8% 10.8%
3-5
Table 3.1.11 Peak power demand forecast up to 2020

Power distribution Peak demand Load RMEK
Year Forecast Growth Forecast Growth factor Peak load
MW % MW % % MW
2005 348 1,171 30.0
2006 487 39.9 1,457 24.4 33.4
2007 487 0.0 1,739 19.4 28.0
2008 500 2.7 1,889 8.6 26.5
2009 813 62.6 2,096 11.0 38.8
2010 1,046 28.7 2,302 9.8 45.4
2011 1,435 37.2 2,806 21.9 51.1
2012 1,833 27.7 3,279 16.9 55.9
2013 2,214 20.8 3,690 20.8 60.0 3,717
2014 2,674 20.8 4,114 11.4 65.0 4,700
2015 3,231 20.8 4,616 12.2 70.0 5,521
2016 3,619 12.0 5,170 12.0 70.0 5,788
2017 4,060 12.2 5,800 12.2 70.0 6,093
2018 4,486 10.5 6,408 10.5 70.0 6,459
2019 4,863 8.4 6,947 8.4 70.0 6,846
2020 5,204 7.0 7,434 7.0 70.0 7,257
12/07 30.4% 13.5% 13.5%
15/12 20.8% 12.1% 19.0%
20/15 10.0% 10.0% 5.6%
20/12 13.9% 10.8% 10.4%
Note: Deficiency of distribution occurs during 2013～2014, however the deficiency are solved at 2015
Note: after 2015, the demand and distribution are the same trends.
Figure 3.1.2 Peak loads of RMEK and JICA Survey Team forecasts
3.1.4 Power Demand Forecast by Region
The power demand by region (Erbil, Duhok and Sulaymani up to 2020 are distributed by the actual
contribution of the regional distributed power demand from 201 to 2012. The contribution values are
36 % in Erbil, 23 % in Duhok and 41 % in Sulaymani.
The results are as follows;
a) The power demand (Distribution base) in Erbil in 2020 is 2,374 MW (665 MW in 2012)
b) The power demand (Distribution base) in Duhok in 2020 is 1,472 MW (413 MW in 2012)
c) The power demand (Distribution base) in Sulaymani in 2020 is 2,694 MW (755 MW in 2012)
3-6
Table 3.1.12 Power distribution contribution by region

Year
% % % % %
2010 37.0% 21.2% 41.7% 0.0% 100.0%
2011 34.8% 21.7% 37.3% -6.1% 100.0%
2012 36.3% 22.5% 41.2% 0.0% 100.0%
From 2013 To 2020 36.0 % 23.0% 41.0% 100.0%
Source: RMEK
Table 3.1.13 Power demand (Distribution base) by region

Year
MW MW MW MW MW
2010 387 222 436 0 1,045
2011 522 326 560 -92 1,500
2012 665 413 755 0 1,833
2013 804 498 912 0 2,214
2014 971 602 1,102 0 2,674
2015 1,173 727 1,331 0 3,231
2016 1,314 814 1,491 0 3,619
2017 1,474 914 1,673 0 4,060
2018 1,628 1,009 1,848 0 4,486
2019 1,765 1,094 2,004 0 4,863
2020 1,889 1,171 2,144 0 5,204
15/12 20.8% 20.7% 20.8% 20.8%
20/15 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0%
20/12 13.9% 13.9% 13.9% 13.9%
Table 3.1.14 Peak load by region

Erbil Duhok Sulaymani Total
Year
MW MW MW MW
2010 867 610 825 2,302
2011 975 690 1,141 2,806
2012 1,143 856 1,280 3,279
2013 1,339 830 1,520 3,690
2014 1,493 926 1,695 4,114
2015 1,676 1,039 1,902 4,616
2016 1,877 1,163 2,130 5,170
2017 2,105 1,305 2,390 5,800
2018 2,326 1,442 2,640 6,409
2019 2,522 1,563 2,862 6,947
2020 2,699 1,673 3,063 7,434
15/12 13.6% 6.7% 14.1% 12.1%
20/15 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0%
20/12 11.3% 8.7% 11.5% 10.8%
3-7
3.2 Power Development Plan
3.2.1 Present Situation of the Power System
The outline image of the present situation of the Kurdistan power system is shown below in Figure 3.2.1.
The system consisting from 132kV transmission lines carries the power to the 33/11kV distribution side
in each of the point of large demand, such as Duhok, Erbil and Sulaymani, each the capitol of the three
governorates of the same name, respectively.
Source: by the Survey Team based on PSS/E data of 2013 provided from RMEK.
Figure 3.2.1 Image of Present Power System in Kurdistan
3-8
Based on the PSS/E1 data of 2013 Kurdistan power system provided from RMEK, the JICA Survey
Team took a close look at the present situation.
The total installed capacity of power generation was approximately 3,163MW and that of the total load
was 2,771MW.
Figure 3.2.2 shows the power flow analysis result. To make a clear view of the result, the power plants
(machine model) is toggled into a single circle icon, which 9 of them equally allocated in balance
throughout the Kurdistan Region.
Table 3.2.1 shows the list of these power plants.
Source: PSS/E data of 2013 provided from RMEK.
Figure 3.2.2 Power Flow Image of Present Power System in Kurdistan
1
Power System Simulator for Engineering: System analysis software developed by Power Technologies, Inc (currently merged to Siemens).
3-9
Table 3.2.1 List of Power Plants of Present Power System in Kurdistan

Unit Installed Output Completion
Governorate Power Station Type
No. Capacity (MW) Capacity (MW) Year
1 7.25 7.25 Diesel 2001
2 7.25 7.25 Diesel 2001
Duhok East (29MW)
3 7.25 7.25 Diesel 2001
4 7.25 7.25 Diesel 2001
1 11.0 11.0 Heavy Fuel Oil -
Duhok Baadra (143MW) 6 11.0 11.0 Heavy Fuel Oil -
1 125.0 125.0 Diesel / Light Fuel 2010
Duhok Gas (500MW)
Duhok Total 850 850
1 7.25 7.25 Diesel 2001
2 7.25 7.25 Diesel 2001
North Erbil (29MW)
3 7.25 7.25 Diesel 2001
4 7.25 7.25 Diesel 2001
1 125.0 125.0 Natural Gas / Diesel 2008
Erbil
Erbil Gas (1,000MW)
Erbil Total 1,029 1,029
1 80.0 35.0 Hydro 1975
2 80.0 35.0 Hydro 1975
Dokan (400MW) 3 80.0 0 Hydro 1975
4 80.0 0 Hydro 1975
5 80.0 0 Hydro 1975
1 83.0 0 Hydro 1987
Darbandikhan (249MW) 2 83.0 0 Hydro 1987
3 83.0 30.0 Hydro 1987
1 7.25 7.25 Diesel 2001
Sulaymaniyah West 2 7.25 7.25 Diesel 2001
Sulaymani
(29MW) 3 7.25 7.25 Diesel 2001
4 7.25 7.25 Diesel 2001
Chamchamal 4 125.0 125.0 Natural Gas / Diesel 2009
(1,000MW) 5 125.0 125.0 Natural Gas / Diesel 2009
Sulaymani Total 1,678 1,129
Grand Total 3,557 3,008
3-10
Despite this allocation of the power plants, the power flow and the voltage condition still cannot reach a
stable power condition. The concerned points are shown in red-dotted areas in Figure 3.2.2.
Details are shown in Table 3.2.2 and Table 3.2.3, there are substations where the voltage drops under 0.9
P.U. and also with two transmission lines causing an overflow.
Table 3.2.2 List of Low Voltage Substations

Voltage Observed
Bus No. Name of Bus Rated Voltage (kV)
Voltage Observed (kV) P.U.
4 CHWARQURNA 132.0 111.0 0.841
13304 SLDN (Salahaddin) 132.0 117.5 0.890
13309 SORAN 132.0 103.4 0.783
14303 KLAR (Kalar) 132.0 111.9 0.848
14308 SSDK (Said Sadik) 132.0 118.8 0.900
15304 KERKUK (Kirkuk) 132.0 117.5 0.890
Table 3.2.3 List of Overflow Transmission Lines

Rated Capacity Flow Observed at Flow Observed at
From Bus No. Name of From Bus To Bus No. Name of To Bus
(MVA) From Bus (MVA) To Bus (MVA)
ERPK ERBGPS
13307 13308 123.0 129.7 131.7
(Erbil Park) (Erbil Gas Power Station)
ERPK
13307 13340 J-E-AZ2 123.0 135.1 135.6
(Erbil Park)
The voltage drop is critical and needs to be taken of urgent countermeasure, such as installing SVC (static
Var Compensator) at the listed substations.
Generally, in static state, the voltage should not go under 0.95 P.U.
The Overflow seen as listed above, should be carefully investigated as the ERPK (Erbil Park) is in one of
the vast load area. Rated capacity of 123 MVA transmission line in this area may not be enough.
Expansion of capacity of the capacity by up-grading the lines or to added extra circuits to the existing
lines will be necessary in the coming years.
The JICA Survey Team will not go through cross section of this year 2013 as it does fairly reflect the
situation in the Kurdistan Region where short outages occur throughout the day.
3.2.2 Present Power Development Plan
The power development plan was provided from RMEK as shown in Table 3.2.4.
The description of maximum dependable capacity in the year 2013 is 3,335 MW which is appropriately in
range with the total capacity of power generation mentioned in the previous clause.
By 2016, the total installed capacity of the power generation will reach 8,593 MW and the maximum
dependable capacity will be 7,355 MW. This is both an amount more than twice as high when compared
to the year 2013. This exponential growth of the power generation plan in only 3 years is based on the
active investment arising in these years, to overcome power outages and to fulfil the rapid growing
demand.
3-11
Table 3.2.4 Present Power Development Plan

2013 2014 2015 2016
Item Name of the Power Plant
Installed Capacity Max. Dependable Installed Capacity Max. Dependable Installed Capacity Max. Dependable Installed Capacity Max. Dependable
No. [Power Generation Unit]
Generation (MW) capacity (MW) Generation (MW) capacity (MW) Generation (MW) capacity (MW) Generation (MW) capacity (MW)
Erbil GPP 1000MW+500MW
1 1000 950 1000 950 1500 1400 1500 1400
Combine Cycle [125MW - 8 units]
Sulay mani GPP 1000MW + 500MW
2 1000 950 1000 950 1000 950 1500 1400
Combined Cycle [125MW - 8 units]
Dohuk GPP 750MW + 375MW
3 Combined Cycle 750 720 750 720 750 720 1125 720
[125MW - 6 units, 125MW - 3 units]
Badraa HFO PP
4 150 140 150 140 150 140 500 450
[11MW - 13 units]
5 Tas loja 51MW PP (diesel) 51 40 51 40 51 40 51 40
Dokan HPP
6 400 200* 400 200 400 200 400 200
[80MW - 5 units]
Derbandikhan HPP
7 249 125* 249 125 249 125 249 125
[83MW - 3 units]
8 Erbil Diesel PP 29MW 29 20 29 20 29 20 29 20
9 Sulaymani Diesel PP 29MW 29 20 29 20 29 20 29 20
10 Dohuk Diesel PP 29MW 29 20 29 20 29 20 29 20
Kurmala GPP (KAR)
11 500 475 675 600 1000 950 1000 950
[160MW - 3 units]
12 Zahko GPP - - 800 750 800 750
13 Kahbat TPP (300+300)MW - - 300 300 300 300
14 Bazian GPP - - 500 450 500 450
15 Kalar GPP - - 500 450 500 450
16 Sakar Station - 81 60 81 60 81 60
Total (MW) 4,187 3,335 4,443 3,845 7,368 6,595 8,593 7,355
Notes:
* Actual Generation for the time being in Dokan and Darbandikan is 27MW & 40MW respectively.
Source: Provided document from RMEK.
Table 3.2.5 shows the demand forecast from 2013 - 2020 also provided from RMEK along with the
former list.
It is seen that the maximum dependable capacity will overturn the load estimation in 2015.
The compound annual growth rate from 2013 to 2020 will be 10.09% which is a very high amount
prevising the Countries’ progress of the next decade.
It is noteworthy that the growth rate of these few years is rising aggressively, while from that of later on
the growth saturates and calms down.
Table 3.2.5 Power Supply and Demand Forecast

Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Max. Dependable capacity (MW) 3,660 3,845 6,595 7,355
Load Estimated (MW) 3,717 4,700 5,521 5,788 6,093 6,459 6,846 7,257
Comparing betwee Max. Generation &
-57 -855 1,074 1,567
the Estimated Load
3.2.3 Supply Demand and Transferring the Power in each Governorate
Before 2010, Erbil and Duhok Governorate did not have connection of the power system in 132kV
transmission line. In cases Duhok Governorate had to import power from Turkey to meet the high
demand periods.
Now, including Sulaymani, every Governorate in Kurdistan is connected via the 132kV transmission line.
3-12
The connecting points are as follows;

a) Baadra - Erbil Power Plant in 1cct (Duhok - Erbil connection)
b) Akra - Azadi Mobile Joint in 1cct (Duhok - Erbil connection)
c) New Erbil - Dokhan Hydro in 1cct (Erbil - Bazian connection)
d) Koya - Dokhan Hydro in 1cct (Erbil - Bazian connection)
e) Erbil East - Tasluja in 2cct (Erbil - Bazian connection)
The power is capable to be transferred between the governorates by these connections.

Figure 3.2.3 shows a supply and demand balance in the 2013 Kurdistan power system.
Reserve capacity of the power supply is 11.5% for Duhok, 27.5% for Erbil and 7.4% for Sulaymani.
All governorates have enough reserve capacity to fulfil the demand within the region and therefore, the
general view towards transferring power between the governorates, are not so much of a high issue.
Although with the fact that there are two main hydro power plants in Sulaymani; Dokhan and
Derbandikhan, which in drought periods may not be able to supply enough power, it must be taken into
consideration that there might be some unbalanced conditions at Sulaymani.
1800
1600 load (MW)
1400 generation (MW)
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
DUHOK ERBIL SULAYMANI
*Generation values are based on installed capacity of each power plant.

*Load of Mosul Dam is included in Duhok governorate.
*Load of Dibis is included in Erbil governorate.
*Load of Kirkuk is included in Sulaymani governorate.
Source: by the JICA Survey Team based on PSS/E data of 2013 provided from RMEK.
Figure 3.2.3 Supply and Demand Balance in 2013 Kurdistan Power System
3-13
3.3 Power Network Planning
3.3.1 Situation of the Planned Power System
RMEK also provided JICA Survey Team with the PSS/E data of 2020 Kurdistan power system. The JICA
Survey Team also checked the situation of the cross section of this year.
The total installed capacity of power generation was approximately 8,120MW and that of the total load
was 7,550MW.
Image of the planned 2020 power system in Kurdistan is shown in Figure 3.3.1.
to TURKEY
to SYRIA
to Mosul 400
Bekhma
Mosul
Dam
Gomaspan
to Mosul
to Kirkuk to IRAN
to Kirkuk
: 400kV transmission line (1cct)

: 132kV transmission line
: power station
: 400/132kV substation
: 132/33/11kV substation
: main cities
Source: by JICA Survey Team based on PSS/E data of 2020 provided from RMEK.
Figure 3.3.1 Image of Planned 2020 Power System in Kurdistan
This figure mainly describes the planned 400kV transmission line with the 132kV transmission line of
2013 left for reference. (The whole image of the power system will be shown in an edited diagram based
on the output of PSS/E.)
3-14
The main difference compared to the 2013 power system is the 400kV transmission line connecting west
most Zakho to Duhok, Erbil, Bazian and the east most Said Sadek. Said Sadek is currently a 132/33/11kV
substation. In this 2020 plan, it will be enhanced to 400kV.
Based on the PSS/E data of the planned 2020 Kurdistan power system, the JICA Survey Team checked
the future situation and found out that there are basically no issues to be concerned of. (Only a few minor
issues resulting from modelling method have been observed.)
Figure 3.3.2 shows the power flow analysis result of the 2020 Kurdistan power system. To make a clear
view of the result, the power plants (machine model) is toggled into a single circle icon. The transmission
lines drawn in a thick line (red line: 400kV, green line: 132kV) represents double circuit while that of a
narrow line is for single circuit.
There are 22 machine models seen to have been allocated in balance throughout the Kurdistan Region, as
well as the situation was on the 2013 power system. The allocation has been appropriately considered to
supply power in the concept of “regionally produced and consumed”.
Figure 3.3.2 Power Flow Image of 2020 Power System in Kurdistan
3-15
With the PSS/E data, the JICA Survey Team received a planned power system in Kurdistan up to 2020
from RMEK as shown in Figure 3.3.3.
The figure describes the latest plan which was updated in March 11th, 2013 and provided to the JICA
Survey Team on their 2nd mission in Erbil.
3-16
*In the legend mentioned “Existing & Proposed 400&132kV System up to the end of year 2015”, but describes the 2020 plan.
(It is confirmed by RMEK with JICA Survey Team).
Figure 3.3.3 Planned Power System in Kurdistan up to 2020
3-17
The yellow colored part in the figure is the planned 400/132kV substation which the construction project
has not been financed or neither has been chosen of the contractors.
These are;
a) Gomaspan (Erbil governorate)
b) Bazyan (Sulaymani governorate)
c) Kalar (Sulaymani governorate)
d) Arbat (Sulaymani governorate)
The latest planned is Bazyan where there will be a large industrial complex (mainly cement and relevant
factories), attracting investment domestically and abroad.
Kalar will be foreseeing a large capacity power plant (500 - 1,000MW by 2020) to have the power
transferred from the southeast region of Kurdistan via 400kV transmission line.
The other two; Gomaspan and Arbat, will be a substation without nearby connecting power plant, while
feeding to 132kV load and is seen to contribute to the stability of the power system.
Table 3.3.1 shows the list of these power plants.

There are 15 power plants newly constructed in the 2020 plan compared to the existing ones in 2013. The
mentioned power plants are as follows;
[ in Duhok governorate ]
a) Deraluk Hydro Power Plant (73MW)
b) Gali Balinda Hydro Power Plant (30MW)
c) Bagova Hydro Power Plant (15MW)
d) Mandawa Hydro Power Plant (155MW)
[ in Erbil governorate ]
a) Khabat Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) Power Plant (600MW)
b) Constructed by POSCO Engineering & Construction Company (Korea).
c) Harir Power Plant (200MW)
d) Erbil Gas Power Plant (500MW)
e) Constructed by Mass Group Holding Ltd.(MGH) (Kurdistan conglomerate).
f) 1,000MW Erbil Gas Power Plant exists in an adjacent site.
g) Khormala (Erbil) Power Plant (1,000MW)
h) Constructed by KAR Group (Kurdistan conglomerate).
i) Taqtaq Hydro Power Plant (68MW)
[ in Sulaymani governorate ]
a) Qala Diza HFO Power Plant (200MW)
b) Kalar Gas Power Plant (500MW)
c) Bazyan Gas Power Plant (500MW)
The JICA Survey Team has not obtained the detail information about the 400kV substations and
transmission lines. As far as from the PSS/E data it can be found that there are around 10 of 400/132kV
substations which are not functioning as only for power plant connection.
Some of these substations that have already commenced of design, construction are as follows;
Harir (Erbil) under construction by MGH including connecting transmission lines
Khabat (Erbil) under construction by POSCO
Erbil under construction by KAR
3-18
Table 3.3.1 List of Power Plants of 2020 Power System in Kurdistan

Unit Installed Output Completion
Governorate Power Station Type
No. Capacity (MW) Capacity (MW) Year
Deraluk (65+8MW) - 73.0 73.0 Hydro -
Gali Balinda (30MW) - 30.0 30.0 Hydro -
Bagova (15MW) - 15.0 15.0 Hydro? -
Mandawa (155MW) - 155.0 155.0 Hydro? -
Zakho (400MW) - 400.0 400.0 Heavy Fuel Oil -
1 7.25 7.25 Diesel 2001
2 7.25 7.25 Diesel 2001
Duhok East (29MW)
3 7.25 7.25 Diesel 2001
4 7.25 7.25 Diesel 2001
Duhok 5 11.0 11.0 Heavy Fuel Oil -
Baadra (143MW) 7 11.0 11.0 Heavy Fuel Oil -
Duhok Gas (500MW) 3 125.0 125.0 Diesel / Light Fuel 2010
Duhok Total 1,795 1,795
1 7.25 0 Diesel 2001
2 7.25 0 Diesel 2001
North Erbil (29MW)
3 7.25 0 Diesel 2001
4 7.25 0 Diesel 2001
1 300.0 300.0 Heavy Fuel Oil 2015
Khabat (600MW)
2 300.0 300.0 Heavy Fuel Oil 2018-2020
Harir (200MW) 1 200.0 200.0 2008
Erbil Gas (1,000MW)
Erbil
Erbil Gas (500MW)
1 160.0 160.0 Natural Gas / Diesel 2017-2020
Erbil Gas - KAR 3 160.0 160.0 Natural Gas / Diesel 2017-2020
(960MW) 4 160.0 160.0 Natural Gas / Diesel 2017-2020
Taqtaq (68MW) - 68.0 68.0 Hydro -
Erbil Total 3,357 3,328
1 80.0 35.0 Hydro 1975
2 80.0 35.0 Hydro 1975
Dokan (400MW) 3 80.0 0 Hydro 1975
4 80.0 0 Hydro 1975
5 80.0 0 Hydro 1975
1 83.0 0 Hydro 1987
Darbandikhan (249MW) 2 83.0 0 Hydro 1987
3 83.0 30.0 Hydro 1987
1 7.25 0 Diesel 2001
Sulaymaniyah West 2 7.25 0 Diesel 2001
(29MW) 3 7.25 0 Diesel 2001
Sulaymani 4 7.25 0 Diesel 2001
Qala Diza (200MW) - 200.0 200.0 Heavy Fuel Oil 2015
Kalar (500MW) - 500.0 500.0 Natural Gas / Diesel 2015
Bazyan (500MW) - 500.0 400.0 Natural Gas / Diesel 2015
Chamchamal 4 125.0 125.0 Natural Gas / Diesel 2009
(1,000MW) 5 125.0 125.0 Natural Gas / Diesel 2009
Sulaymani Total 2,878 2,200
Grand Total 8,030 7,323
Source: PSS/E data of 2013 provided from RMEK
3-19
3.3.2 Supply Demand and Transferring the Power in Planned Power System
In the 2020 plan, the supply and demand balance largely changes compared to the current 2013 situation.
The 2020 plan shows no connection between Duhok and Erbil governorates via 132kV transmission line,
instead building a firm connection with the 400kV transmission lines.
The connecting points are as follows;
a) Duhok - Harir 400kV in 1cct (Duhok - Erbil connection)
b) Duhok - Khabat 400kV in 1cct (Duhok - Erbil connection)
c) Duhok - Erbil 400kV in 1cct (Duhok - Erbil connection)
d) Gomaspan - Sulaymani West 400kV in 2cct (Erbil - Sulaymani connection)
e) Harir - Hajiawa 132kV in 2cct (Erbil - Sulaymani connection)
f) Taqtaq - Tasluja 132kV in 2cct (Erbil - Sulaymani connection)
Figure 3.3.4 shows a supply and demand balance in the planned 2020 Kurdistan power system. Compared
to the situation in 2013 (Figure 3.2.3), the growing demand supresses the reserve capacity of the power
supply to 14.4% in Erbil.
In Duhok, development of a large scale gas power plant in Zakho and Duhok connected to 400/132kV
substation supplies more than enough power to be consumed in the governorate, while in Sulaymani, the
demand nearly equal to Erbil soars almost double the amount of the supply even though there are power
development plans in Bazyan and Kalar.
Despite the mentioned unbalance, the 400kV power system throughout the region will contribute to the
power supply to be covering the deficiency in Sulaymani. It can be assumed that generally, the power
flow will be in the direction of Duhok to Erbil.
5000
4500 load (MW)
4000 generation (MW)
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
DUHOK ERBIL SULAYMANI
*Generation values are based on installed capacity of each power plant.

*Load of Dibis is included in Erbil governorate.
*Load of Kirkuk is included in Sulaymani governorate.
Source: by JICA Survey Team based on PSS/E data of 2020 provided from RMEK
Figure 3.3.4 Supply and Demand Balance in 2020 Kurdistan Power System
3-20
3.4 Necessity and Validity of the Project
3.4.1 Objective
The power system analysis in this survey will be carried out to support the decision process of which
400kV power facilities to be formed as a project by Japanese ODA loan to be contributing to the future
Kurdistan power system.
In October 15th, 2012, KRG Ministry of Planning have approved and submitted a project proposal report
to the Japanese Government for the implementation of the following power facilities;
a) Gomaspan 400/132kV substation with 2 x 250MVA transformer (Erbil)
b) Arbat 400/132kV substation with 2 x 250MVA transformer (Sulaymani)
As mentioned in 3.3.1 Situation of the Planned Power System (Figure 3.3.3), the analysis will be leading
the JICA Survey Team to the result of how the necessity and validity of these project formation can be.
3.4.2 Approach and Methodology
The analysis is carried out with making an initial status based on the PSS/E data of 2020 Kurdistan power
system provided from RMEK.
This initial status will be assuming the period of the 400kV power facilities toward east from Harir and
that of Bazian is not yet constructed; presumably few years before 2020. These assumptions are made
from the fact that the substations of Harir, Khabat, Erbil and Bazian have already commenced of the
construction project.
The image of this initial status is shown in Figure 3.4.1. The heavy red-colored line shows the 400kV
transmission lines that have started their operation and the lines in tinted color shows the transmission
lines that would be under construction. Some red-colored lines that are arrowed at their end show the
connection to the other regions outside Kurdistan with the analysis model to be represented only by the
load model, for instance lines to Mosul and to Kirkuk. While the same lines to Turkey, Syria and Iran,
including the one from Bazian to Kirkuk is not considered in the analysis model due to very little
influence in the whole other power system (assumably, several tens MWs export).
When making the initial status, the following adjustments and arrangements were done to the original
PSS/E data by JICA Survey Team;
a) Regarding the base case as the peak load of the year 2020, the power plants (machine model) was
assumed of the critical situation as below;
 No output from Dokhan Hydro Power Plant (due to severe drought period)
 No output from Derbandikhan Hydro Power Plant (same as above)
 Bazyan Power Plant still not constructed
b) Took off the substation models as “not in service” (the 400kV bus bar and 400/132kV
transformer models) in Gomaspan, Arbat and Bazyan.
*The transmission lines in Gomaspan substation connecting to 400kV bus bar had incoming and
outgoing lines which has been dis-connected and by-passed.
c) The 400kV transmission line below is still not constructed.
 Bazian - Arbat (2cct)
 Bazian - Bazyan (2cct)
 Arbat - Bazyan (1cct)
 Bazyan - Harir (1cct)
3-21
Basically, when conducting power system analysis, the following study is considered.
a) Power flow analysis (check power flow, voltage, etc.)
b) Short circuit current analysis
c) Transient stability analysis
To conduct full analysis including checking of the transient stability, takes months on condition that the
integrity of the targeted power system data is confirmed with adequate set of sub data is available.
Due to the limitation of the framework, the transient stability analysis will not be conducted in this survey.
Nevertheless, this analysis will be necessary when the framework of the survey permits.
to TURKEY
to SYRIA
to Mosul 400
Bekhma
Mosul
Dam
Gomaspan
to Mosul
to Kirkuk to IRAN
to Kirkuk

: 132kV transmission line
: power station
: 132/33-11kV substation
: main cities
Source: by the JICA Survey Team based on PSS/E data of 2020 provided from RMEK
Figure 3.4.1 Initial Image of Power System for Analysis
3-22
Having this initial status as the “base case”, the JICA Survey Team will be starting off with this case and
modifying it to reach the conclusion in the following procedure;
(1) Observe the condition of the base case by the analysis

(2) If there are issues in (1), assume constructed and connected Gomaspan substation
(3) If still are issues in (2), assume construction of Arbat substation and 400kV transmission lines from
Bazian to Arbat
(4) If still are issues in (3), assume construction of Bazyan substation connecting power station in Bazyan
feeding power via 400kV transmission line.
(5) If still are issues in (4), return back to the exactly same case as the 2020 power system
In case the study reaches (5), it means that the planned 2020 power system with all the 400kV power
facilities is necessary to clear the issues.
Note that at the point of having the issues cleared, the JICA Survey Team will stop the analysis to
conclude the case as the appropriate condition; static state.
If there are no issues from 2), the JICA Survey Team will consider further analysis method, such as
calculating short circuit current to confirm the stability and reliability of the power system up to 2020.
3.4.3 Calculation Premise
Required criteria for the analysis will be as follows;

a) Voltage regulation of normal operation without any failure:
0.95 P.U. – 1.05 P.U. (5%)
b) Voltage regulation of normal operation in single failure
0.90 P.U. – 1.10 P.U. (10%)
c) Power flow: to be within rated transmission capacity
(Considering N-12 condition, in 2 circuit lines, to be under 50%/circuit.)
Prerequisites for the analysis will be as follows;

a) Prerequisites up to preparing the base case is as mentioned in 3.4.2 Approach and Methodology.
b) Power interchange resulting from assuming Dokhan, Derbandikhan Hydro Power Plant and
Bazyan Power Plant without any power output, will be done from Zakho Power Plant
c) The tap ratios of the transformers will all be fixed.
d) Minor issues seen from the original data in under 132kV power system is ignored.
3.4.4 Power Flow Analysis
The power flow and the voltage condition for the planned 2020 power system of RMEK is shown in
Figure 3.4.2. There are no deviation of the voltage range from normal operation and neither of overloaded
transmission lines.
The planned 2020 power system of RMEK can obviously be said that it has the necessary conditions
fulfilled with the facilities to realize them. Needless to say, 400/132kV substation, Gomaspan and Arbat
is included in the power system, which the JICA Survey Team will be focusing upon to confirm its
validity and necessity.
2
General reliability of power system called “N-1 criteria”; Among the N units of the power system, even when 1 unit is shut down by accident,
the remaining N-1 unit holds (enables) the situation of the power system for stable power supply. (Not applied when in planned outage or
maintenance.)
3-23
Zakho
to TURKEY
to SYRIA
to Mosul 400 Duhok
Bekhma
Harir
Mosul
Gomaspan
Gomaspan
to Mosul
Khabat
Bazyan
Erbil
to Kirkuk to IRAN
Arbat
to Kirkuk
: 400kV transmission line (1cct) Sulaymani

: power station directly to 400kV
Figure 3.4.2 Power Flow and Voltage Condition of 2020 Planned Power System
3-24
The power flow analysis results of the cases mentioned in the clause 3.4.2 Approach and Methodology is
shown below.
(1) Power Flow Results of the Base Case (Figure 3.4.3)
Zakho
to TURKEY
to SYRIA
to Mosul 400 Duhok
Bekhma
Harir
Mosul
Gomaspan
Gomaspan
to Mosul
Khabat
Bazyan
Erbil
to Kirkuk to IRAN
Arbat
to Kirkuk

Figure 3.4.3 Power Flow Result for Base Case
3-25
(2) Power Flow Results of the Case Adding Gomaspan, Arbat and Bazyan Substation with 400kV
transmission lines: Final Analysis Case (Figure 3.4.4)
Zakho
to TURKEY
to SYRIA
to Mosul 400 Duhok
Bekhma
Harir
Mosul
Gomaspan
Gomaspan
to Mosul
Khabat
Bazyan
Erbil
to Kirkuk to IRAN
Arbat
to Kirkuk

Figure 3.4.4 Power Flow Result for Case Adding Gomaspan,
Arbat and Bazyan Substation with 400kV transmission lines for Final Analysis Case
3-26
Summary of the power flow analysis results are as follows;

a) The Base case had overload of 132kV transmission lines around Erbil and voltage drop of under
0.95 P.U. in Bazian.
b) By adding Gomaspan substation into the 400kV power system, the over load under N-1
contingency will be cleared. Although, the voltage drop at around Bazian is not solved.
c) In addition to above, adding Arbat and Bazyan substation with 400kV transmission line
connection between Bazian - Arbat and Duhok - Harir, gives solution to lessen the voltage drop
areas almost to half of that in Base case and also to clear the overload between Duhok - Harir.
d) Lastly adding 400kV transmission line connection between Arbat - Bazyan to the above gives a
total solution to the normal state of the power system. (Final Analysis case)
Note that, the point of the final power flow analysis (Final Analysis Case) is almost the same as the
original planned 2020 power system, but with the difference of 400kV transmission line connection
between Bazian - Bazyan (2cct) and Bazyan - Harir (1cct).
3.4.5 Short Circuit Current Analysis
When expanding the power system, the newly connected power generator will have to be considered as
the increase of short circuit current. As the planned 2020 power system of RMEK has a vast difference
compared to the current power system, especially, around Erbil and Chamchamal- Bazian -Bazyan, where
power plants of large capacity is to be constructed, the short circuit current is assumed to be rising up.
The short circuit current will be calculated by causing a symmetrical three phase line short fault.
The short circuit current of 2013 current power system is at maximum around 30kA for 132kV system
and this is supposed to have, within the current power facilities to have the circuit breakers with enough
rated breaking capacity of 40kA.
The short circuit current of planned 2020 power system is at maximum over 50kA for 132kV system as
shown in Figure 3.4.5 and in Table 3.4.1. According to the survey, 9 points exceed the 40kA and 7 points
exceed 50kA. The actual maximum value of the short circuit current is 56.33kA seen at Erbil Substation
132kV side. Including Erbil Substation, buses at Erbil Gas Power Plant, Chamchamal and Bazian
Substation has the same condition, with short circuit current exceeding 50kA.
This short circuit current exceeding 50kA is practically an abnormal case where there is no manufacturer
capable of supplying 132kV circuit breaker with breaking capacity exceeding this value. Even if 50kA,
only few manufacture can provide 132kV switchgear equipment as special design.
However, this result from the analysis of a critical case assumed by the JICA Survey Team as mentioned
in clause 3.4.2 Approach and Methodology.
From this situation, the JICA Survey Team conducted a further study by changing the models in PSS/E
data as follows;
a) Disconnecting the bus tie in the 132kV side of the above substations
b) Separating the bus in the 132kV side of the above substations
This is based on the fact that standard configuration of 400/132kV substations of REMK is consisting of a
double bus bar.
The result of this study is shown in Figure 3.4.6 and Table 3.4.2.
3-27
Figure 3.4.5 Short Circuit Current Distribution Map of 2020 without Measures
Table 3.4.1 Short Circuit Current of 2020 without Measures

Bus No. Name of Bus Short Circuit Current (kA)
6 ERBIL2 132 132.00 55.73
13 EGPP2 132.00 54.10
13308 ERBGPS 132.00 53.75
13330 KHABAT 132.00 46.81
13331 KHA TPP 132.00 47.43
13342 ERBIL1 132 132.00 56.33
14315 CHAM GPP 132.00 50.88
14356 SULAY132 132.00 51.84
14378 BAZIAN SW/S 132.00 43.85
3-28
Figure 3.4.6 Short Circuit Current Distribution Map of 2020 with Measures
Table 3.4.2 Short Circuit Current of 2020 with Measures
Bus No. Name of Bus Short Circuit Current (kA)
61 132 (separated bus from 14356) 46.25
62 132 (separated bus from 14315) 43.52
13330 KHABAT 132.00 46.49
13331 KHA TPP 132.00 47.10
13342 ERBIL1 132 132.00 45.02
14315 CHAM GPP 132.00 43.52
14356 SULAY132 132.00 46.25
14378 BAZIAN SW/S 132.00 43.83

3-29
Note that the separation of the bus bars drastically decreases the short circuit current. As from Table 3.4.2
there are no short circuit exceeding 50kA. Still, 8 points exceed 40kA. The Bus No. 61 and 62 are the
separated buses from Bazian substation and Chamchamal substation respectively for 132kV side,
modified by the JICA Survey Team.
Although still with the fact that the short circuit current is over 40kA, up-grading of the circuit breakers
will be necessary in this future stage.
At the moment this is not a level of an issue since, as mentioned before, the JICA Survey Team regards
the base data of the analysis as a critical case. Moreover, the active demand towards construction of
400kV transmission line will allow more options of 132kV transmission line to be separated, which will
contribute to decreasing the short circuit current. Also, as the power facilities are built, detailed study and
design will be done to avoid these short circuit current situations.
Conclusion of the power flow analysis will be as follows;

a) All the 400/132kV substations in the 2020 planned power system are necessary.
b) Some 400kV transmission lines connecting the above substation can be considered an option for
the situation beyond 2020.
c) Short circuit current in 2013 is at maximum approximately 30kA.
d) Few substations’ 132kV bus has short circuit current exceeding 50kA in 2020, but this can be
reduced to lower than 50kA by operation of separating buses at 132kV side of each substation.
Based on this conclusion and with the following facts, constructing the 400/132kV substation; Gomaspan
and Arbat will be the most suitable project formation by the Japanese ODA loans.
a) Within the candidate substations, Bazyan which is to be, at the moment, constructed by RMEK’s
own resources and in future, Kalar which will be connecting a large capacity power plant not yet
fully planned, will rather be far from linking it to credit from abroad.
b) As mentioned in 3.4.1 Objective, KRG Ministry of Planning have approved and submitted a
project proposal report to the Japanese Government for the implementation of Gomaspan and
Arbat substations.
3-30
Chapter 4
Selection of the Substation Locations
and Transmission Line Routes

Chapter 4 Selection of the Substation Locations

and Transmission Line Routes
4.1 Required Conditions of Site Location and Route
4.1.1 Substation
The substation is designed and constructed based on the Design Condition of Substation, such as
Topographical conditions, Electrical criteria, Standards and Technical Specification etc., which are
descried in Chapter 6.
The sizing of the substation is basic factor to select the construction site and the typical layout drawing of
the Substation is shown in Figure 6.1.3 (Chapter 6). The layout drawing includes the temporally working
area and storage area etc. considering site construction works. The substation sites shall be selected to
suite the accommodation of the whole substation facilities.
400kV and 132kV transmission lines routes, regardless existing or planned, also shall be considered to
select the site of the substation which shall be connected/diverted the new Substation.
Access road from existing main road to the new substation shall be constructed during the project
implementation and then, the location of the main road shall also be taking into consideration.
Environmental and social issues for the substation sites are described in Chapter 5.
4.1.2 Transmission Line
The transmission line is designed and constructed based on the Design Condition of Transmission Line,
such as Topographical conditions, Electrical criteria, Standards and Technical Specification etc., which
are descried in Chapter 6.
The scale of transmission towers are shown in Figure 6.2.1 and 6.2.2. The typical conductors/ground
wires, insulators, foundation are also shown in Chapter 6.
The transmission line route shall be selected to pass though straight and to become minimalized distance
as possible as it can.
Access road to each tower site shall be constructed during the project implementation and then, the
transportation method for materials and equipment to mountainous tower site shall also be taking into
consideration by individual site conditions.
Environmental and social issues for the transmission line routes are described in Chapter 5.
4-1
4.2 Outline of Site Survey Results
The following site investigation/survey result has been observed;
4.2.1 Substation Sites
(1) Gomaspan
The site is in Erbil Gomaspan, where is outside rural area of Erbil city, in Northern east. The
substation site is the direction of south and south east from the GPS coordinate point of N 36°15’
15.50’’, E44°19’4.01’’.
a) The area is agricultural area owned by Ministry of Agriculture with a total area of 900,000m2
without any obstruction.
b) The difference in elevation for the site is not more than 1 to 1.5m over the distance of 1500m.
c) Existing main road is near to the site, less than 500m northern direction.
d) A double 132kV overhead transmission line is crossing the southern end of the site.
e) Future 400kV overhead transmission line is expected to be crossing near the site.
The following Google Map Figure 4.2.1 shows the Gomaspan area and the location of the substation
site;

Substation Site
Figure 4.2.1 Google Map of Gomaspan substation site
4-2
The following Photographs of Figure 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 show the site views;
Fig. 4.2.2
Fig. 4.2.3

Figures 4.2.2 & 4.2.3 Photographs of Gomaspan Site
(2) Arbat;
The site is in Sulaymani Arbat, where is outside rural area of Sulaymani city, in southern east. The
substation site is the GPS coordinate point of Lat 35.39772 and Long. 45.57553.
a) The area is agricultural area owned by Ministry of Agriculture with a total area of 300,000m2
without any obstruction.
b) The difference in elevation from existing main road to the site is not more than 3m over the
distance of 1750m.
c) Existing main road is near to the site, less than 1700m north east direction.
d) 132kV overhead transmission line observed northwest of the site.
Future 400kV overhead transmission line is expected to be crossing near the site.
The following Google Map Figure 4.2.4 shows the Arbat area and the location of the substation site
and photographs of Figure 4.2.5 and 4.2.6 show the site views;
4-3

Figure 4.2.4 Google Map of Arbat substation site
Fig. 4.2.5
Fig. 4.2.6

Figure 4.2.5 & 4.2.6 Photographs of Arbat Site
4-4
4.2.2 Transmission Line Route
Since the planned transmission line route between Bazian Substation and Arbat Substation has been
already selected by RMEK, local consultants hired by the JICA Survey Team conducted a site survey
along the route. The total length of the route is around 69 km.
The outline of the route is described in Clause 5.4.4.
The route passes though mountainous areas, and then there are sites where the maximum altitude
difference is more than 600 m (Figure 4.2.7, 4.2.8). Therefore, transportation and construction methods at
these sites shall be examined carefully by detail site survey at the project implementation stage.
Bazian S/S
Arbat S/S

Figure 4.2.7 Google Map of the line Route
4-5

Figure 4.2.8 Line route at steep mountain area
4.3 Suitability of Substation Locations
From the site survey, both two sites, i.e., Gomaspan and Arbit, are suitable for the construction of the
substation. RMEK indicates that Ministry of Agriculture will compensate the area, including temporally
access road for the construction by giving contracts for other lands to farm. The detailed study results
related to environmental and social consideration issues are shown in Chapter 5.
4.4 Suitability of Transmission Line Route
The overall transmission line route between Bazian S/S and Arbat S/S is shown in Figure 5.4.16 in
Chapter 5. From the study shown in Chapter 5, the selected routes are suitable for the construction of the
transmission line.
4-6

Final Report On The Preparatory Survey On Electricity Sector Reconstruction Project ( ) The Republic of Iraq, Kurdistan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Report On The Preparatory Survey On Electricity Sector Reconstruction Project ( ) The Republic of Iraq, Kurdistan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Report On The Preparatory Survey On Electricity Sector Reconstruction Project ( ) The Republic of Iraq, Kurdistan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Republic of Iraq

Ministry of Electricity in Kurdistan area (RMEK)

Japan International Cooperation Agency

Tokyo Electric Power Services Co.，Ltd.

Japan International Cooperation Agency

Tokyo Electric Power Services Co.，Ltd.

Contents of Final Report for

Chapter 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1-1

Chapter 2 The Power Sector in Kurdistan ....................................................................... 2-1

Chapter 3 The Necessity and Validity of the Project ...................................................... 3-1

Chapter 6 Substation and Transmission Line Facilities ................................................ 6-1

6.2.6 Foundation Configuration ....................................................................................... 6-8

Chapter 7 Operation, Management and

Chapter 8 Project Evaluation ............................................................................................ 8-1

Table of Contents - III

Abbreviations and Acronyms

NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations

1.1 Background of the Study

1.2 Purpose and Activities

1.2.1 Purpose of the Study

1.2.2 Area in Which to Conduct the Study

Kurdistan region in The Republic of Iraq

1.2.3 Scope of the Study Works

The followings are the targeted study items.

(1) Review and Confirmation of the Network Planning

(2) Review and confirmation of the components of the Project

(3) Confirmation of operation, maintenance and management

(4) Project evaluation

(5) Environmental and social considerations

1.3 Scope of the Project

The target facilities of the Project are shown in Table 1.3.1.

Table 1.3.1 Target Facilities of the Project

Figure 1.3.1 Scope of the Project

1.4 Organization of the Preparatory Survey

1.4.1 Conducting Organization of the Partner Country

RMEK provided the following menbers for this Project;

1.4.2 Member List of the Study Tearm

The JICA Survey Team is composed of the following experts.

1.5 Milestones and Events

1.5.1 Period of the Study;

From December 10, 2012 to August 28, 2013.

1.5.2 Study in Kurdistan;

No. Periods Agenda

The following reports have been submitted;

No. Descriptions Dates

The Power Sector in Kurdistan

Source KRG – Board of Investtment

Table 2.1.1 Kurdistan fact sheet

Figure 2.1.3 Vegetation percentage in Kurdistan governorates

2.1.2 Population and Employment

Table 2.1.2 Population trends in Kurdistan

Table 2.1.3 Estimation of population in Kurdistan

Table 2.1.4 Participation of working population in economic activity in 2011 in Kurdistan

Table 2.1.5 Employment of working age population by governorate in Kurdistan

Table 2.1.6 Participation rate of working population by sector (2006/2007) in Kurdistan

(3) Human development and employment policies

a) Goal of the policies

b) Achievement Indicators of the goal

scientific specializations and educational programs.