Special

IEEJ：2015年9月掲載 禁無断転載

Article 2

By Ken Koyama

Author Ken Koyama

Introduction
On July 16 the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI)
officially approved its “Long-Term Energy Supply and Demand Outlook”
for fiscal 2030. The first revision of this document in five years
represents an important milestone in reviewing Japanese energy policy
in light of the Great East Japan Earthquake and the Fukushima nuclear
disaster. In this article I will discuss the significance of the Outlook,issues of debate in the deliberations over it, important points in thepaper’s content and anticipated challenges, while undertaking a bigpicture survey of where the Outlook stands.

total power generation. This goal has been withdrawn in response to theearthquake and nuclear plant disaster of 2011, and since then METI has
been reviewing energy policy from the ground up.
In April 2014 the government released a long-awaited review of the
Basic Energy Plan, including its basic policy priorities, labeled the “Three
Es with Safety”. Taking lessons from the Fukushima disaster, thefundamental precondition of “safety” was added to the old “Three Es” —i.e. energy security, economic efficiency and environmental protection,and more balanced, simultaneous achievement of the 3E+S goals
became the guiding priority. The new Basic Energy Plan designates
nuclear energy as an “important baseload power source”.
At that time all operations of Japan’s nuclear plants were suspended,and the true value and challenges of renewable energy sources had notbeen proven despite rising expectations. So a new Outlook version was
not presented, while the more qualitative and general Basic Energy Plan
came out ahead of it. Because of the importance of sharing a specificfuture vision, at the end of 2014 METI set up the Subcommittee on
Long-term Energy Supply-Demand Outlook under its Advisory
Committee for Natural Resources and Energy, which began discussions
in January 2015. I had the opportunity to participate in thissubcommittee as a member.

Let's Learn a Lesson from How Kaoru
Ishikawa
Established KAIZEN (Japanese QC).
Significance of the Outlook
With the world’s third-largest GDP, Japan is among the world’s largest
users of energy. The scarcity of fossil-fuel resources in its territories andits extremely low energy self-sufficiency make the stable supply ofenergy a high policy priority for Japan. The Japanese government andprivate sector have joined hands to advance necessary measures toensure reliable energy supplies, seen as tantamount to energy security.
Such measures are gaining importance in addressing climate change as
well.
Requiring special attention in securing energy supply generally are thelong lead times of energy-related investments, which influence future
supply-demand structures. The work involved in building and starting
operations of a large power plant, from design and planning through siteacquisition, groundbreaking and construction, typically takes 10-15
years or more. Such long lead times make it necessary to build a
specific vision now of a desirable supply-demand structure for the
future, and undertake joint efforts by the public and private sectors toachieve it.
Because Japan does not employ a planned economy, the Long-term
Energy Supply and Demand Outlook has no legally binding power. But
it’s in the Japanese style to pursue nationwide efforts to achieve adesired goal presented by the government, and with the periodic reviewsof the Outlook as a precondition, this practice has become central toofficial Japanese energy strategy. The new Outlook updates thegovernment’s desired policy vision after five years.

Ambassador’s View

TPP:
A New Zealand Perspective
Balancing the 3E+S Goals

The subcommittee deliberated intensively through its 11th meeting in
July. To encourage constructive discussion while bringing together
diverse opinions, in these meetings the subcommittee decided on one
fundamental point: the Outlook would be based on the Basic Energy Plan
as decided by the Cabinet in April 2014.
The Basic Energy Plan is a long policy document that includes various
statements and opinions. On the balance of nuclear and renewable
resources, one statement held that the use of the former would be
reduced as much as possible, while use of the latter would rise above
the goal set in the previous Outlook. Many members of thesubcommittee, myself included, understand rather that in essence the
Basic Energy Plan recommends working to achieve the 3E+S goals
simultaneously in a balanced way.
So how will the 3E+S goals be balanced? With safety designated a
top-priority precondition, in its latest deliberations the subcommittee
decided to set three specific 3E goals:
1) Energy security: raise the nation’s energy self-sufficiency rate from
6% now to 25% in fiscal 2030.
2) Economic efficiency: reduce the cost of electricity, which rosesignificantly after the 2011 earthquake, to a level below today’s.
3) Environment: set goals for greenhouse-gas emissions that are inline with those of the United States and Europe.

From an Evangelist of KAIZEN

Accept Foreign Labor for Fiscal Resuscitation
Economic GrowthSocial Impact of
Ambatovy Project’s
Resettlement Process

Background of Latest Outlook& Related Decision Processes

The Cabinet approved the previous Outlook version to complement its
Basic Energy Plan, Japan’s fundamental energy strategy, in June 2010.
To improve energy self-efficiency and address climate change, thatversion included the goal of increasing the nuclear component to 50% of

本文は(一財）国際経済交流財団 Japan SPOTLIGHT Sep/Oct 2015 に掲載されものを転載許可を得て掲載いたしました

By Fabiana ILLESCAS TALLEDO & Matthew STARNES

42 Japan SPOTLIGHT • September / October 2015

The talks focused on building an energy supply-and-demand structurethat allows the simultaneous achievement of the three goals.

Uncompromising Energy Conservation

reducing energy costs to final users. The subcommittee members
looked at each of the various practical renewable resources andcalculated an estimate of generation capacity from each, based on
available information. In sum, in fiscal 2030, 236.6-251.5 billion kWh ofenergy was estimated to come from renewable sources.
In detail, hydroelectric will remain the largest renewable energy
resource, with solar, wind and biomass components growing
significantly between now and fiscal 2030. All combined, renewables willaccount for 22-24% of total power generation in fiscal 2030 (Chart 2).
An important point was made about the cost of purchasing renewableenergy under the FIT scheme, categorized as electricity cost, based on
this share ratio (volume of power generated). To promote the generationof renewable energy, a feed-in tariff system was introduced in 2012. It
has been effective in quantitatively increasing new renewable energy
supply capacity, but the burden of continuously purchasing renewableenergy at a high tariff rate over a long period surfaced as a serious
economic challenge for Japan. The new Outlook version estimates thatannual renewable purchasing costs will grow from 0.5 trillion yen now to
3.7-4 trillion yen in FY 2030, and most of that will be from theintermittent sources: solar (2.3 trillion yen) and wind (0.4 trillion yen).
However, even as expenditures for renewables expand, the Outlook
concludes, total electricity costs can come down by 3-5% from theIn the discussion of the supply-demand outlook, top priority wasplaced on uncompromising energy conservation. Macroeconomic
factors like economic growth are necessary preconditions for finalizing
the Outlook. Annual average growth of 1.7%, as set by government
policy, became a precondition. Then a model was created in which no
extra energy-saving measures were applied. This became a starting
point for discussions on reducing energy consumption with enhanced
measures to encourage conservation.
For this purpose a separate subcommittee was created, which listed
specific areas where energy conservation is possible for the industrial,
residential and transport sectors. All were quantified and summed tocreate maximum numeric goals. As a result, between the case of no
extra energy conservation and the one with enhanced energy
conservation, final energy consumption could fall by roughly 13%, or50.30 million kilolitters oil-equivalent in fiscal 2030 (Chart 1). The study
also showed the possible reduction of electricity consumption by 17%,or 196.1 billion kWh, in the enhanced energy saving case. From these
consumption figures with enhanced energy saving, the subcommittee
CHART 1
calculated a goal for total power generation at 1,065 billion kWh, andOutlook for emergency consumption
discussed which energy sources in what ratios should meet that& primary energy supply in FY 2030
requirement.
Enhancing energy conservation and improving the structure of energy
Energy demand
Total primary energy supply
supply and demand is the right choice for Japan. But it should be noted
489 million kl
Uncompromising energy
Economicthat the conservation goal set out in the latest Outlook version is very
conservation
growth About 50.30 million kl
Renewables 13-14% Self -sufficiency
1.7%/year down roughly 13% from
rate, 24.3%
ambitious. It aims to improve the energy/GDP intensity by 35% by fiscal( pre-measure figure )Nuclear 11-10%
361 million kl
Final energy
2030, a rate of improvement equivalent to what Japan achieved between
consumption
Electricity 25% 326 million kl
Natural gas 18%
1970 and 1990, which included two international oil crises. This is aElectricity 28%
challenging goal because Japan has already accomplished significant
Coal 25%
energy conservation, and the improvement of energy/GDP intensity has
Heat, gasoline,
Heat, gasoline,
LPG 3%
city gas, etc. 75%
city gas, etc. 72%
actually stagnated in the two decades since 1990.
Oil 3%It should also be noted that half of that 50.30 million kl-equivalent
reduction in final energy consumption is expected in the residential
FY 2013
FY 2030
FY 2030(Actual figure) (after implementation of enhanced conservation measures)sector. Going any deeper with energy conservation will not be easy,
because uncompromising enhancement of energy conservation will
Source: Reference material for the 10th meeting (June 1, 2015) of the Subcommittee on Longterm Energy Supply-Demand Outlook
require understanding and cooperation from the
CHART 2
public as well as specific measures to ensure
Outlook for electricity demand & structure of
implementation.

electricity supply in FY 2030

Expanding Renewables
The use of renewable energy resources,
which are domestically available and emit nocarbon dioxide, should be promoted heavily forenergy security and environmental protection,
two of the Es representing the priorities of the
Basic Energy Plan. Challenges to be addressed
will be the high costs and the intermittent supply
nature of solar and wind energy resources.
Subcommittee discussions explored how to
expand the use of renewables to the practicalmaximum while adhering to the policy priority ofElectricity demand

Breakdown by power generation mix

Uncompromising energy conservation
196.1 billion kWh

Economic growth
1.7%/year

Electric power
966.6 billion kWh(Total volume of power generation)

1,278 billion kWh

Power transmission
down 17% fromloss
(pre-measure
figure)Conservation 17%

Saving energy efforts +renewal energy sources =around 40% of the total
generated power without
energy saving

Electric power
980.8 billion kWh

Renewables
19-20%(Total volume of power generation)

1,065 billion kWh

Renewables 22-24%

Nuclear 18-17%

Nuclear 22-20%

LNG 22%

LNG 27%

Coal 22%

Coal 26%

Oil 2%FY 2013(actual figure)

FY 2030

Oil 3%

Geothermal
1.0-1.1%
Biomass 3.7-4.6%
Wind 1.7%
Solar 7.0%
Hydro 8.8-9.2%[Baseload power ratio: 56%]

FY 2030

Source: Reference material for the 10th meeting (June 1, 2015) of the Subcommittee on Long-term Energy Supply-Demand
OutlookJapan SPOTLIGHT • September / October 201543

Special

Article 2

long as its safe use is guaranteed. As for the other E, economic
efficiency, the other government Working Group undertook fact-findingon generation costs alone, and at 10.1 yen/kWh, including the costs ofrelated policy implementation and accident management/compensation,
nuclear energy proved more economically competitive than otheroptions.
So the subcommittee positioned the share of nuclear energy at
20-22% of total power generation, as at that level nuclear will contributesignificantly to meeting all the 3E goals for being self-sufficient, costefficient and helpful in reducing total greenhouse-gas emissions.
The top priority in applying nuclear energy, of course, is securing its
safety. It is therefore imperative that nuclear operations strictly comply
with the new safety standards, regarded as the world’s most stringent
Status of Nuclear Energy
set by the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA), a new independent
regulator set up as a committed response to the Fukushima disaster.
The Basic Energy Plan designates nuclear energy as “an important
Additional voluntary enhancement of safety by electric utilities operatingbaseload power source”. But with persistent public anxiety about its
nuclear plants will also be imperative. As for the back-end issues
safety and no resumption of operations at any suspended nuclear powerincluding those of handling spent nuclear waste, it will be very important
plant, it was not easy to promote its future ideal use.
for the government to take the initiative and lead in carrying forward
The core point in discussing nuclear energy was its contribution to thenecessary measures as well as the responsibility in enhancing the safety
3E balance. As a quasi-domestic energy resource, it can help improve
campaign to rebuild public trust.
energy self-sufficiency (the first E), and its relative freedom from carbonAs for the desired share of nuclear energy (20-22%), somedioxide emissions promotes environmental protection (the second E) as
subcommittee members expressed skepticism about the feasibility of
CHART 3
supplying 20% of total power generation with nuclear, because if a
Outlook for electricity costs in FY 2030
40-year operational lifetime cap is placed on all existing facilities, thecapacity of existing plants will have fallen by FY 2030 (Chart 4).
Electricity costs below
However, in principle an operating electric utility will be able to apply for
9.7 trillion yen
current levela 20-year lifetime extension, based on its internal assessments andadditional investment to comply with safety standards. The NRA will
Fuel costs(thermal & nuclear)then screen those applications and decide whether or not the application
5.3 trillion yen
Small to& medium-sizedhydroelectric
power onlandopposition
can be approved. In thisWind
context,
therigid application
ofgeneration
9.2 trillion yenhydroelectric generation
Wind power at sea
the 40-year lifetime cap was
firm
in
the
subcommittee
discussions.
That
Geothermal power
Solar power
Coalfilled out a new picture Petroleumof existing
nuclear plants
fulfilling the goal of
Biomass
Nuclearpower
FIT purchasing costs
LNG
about
20%
nuclear
in
total
power
generation.
(renewables)
3.7-4.0 trillion yen
This vision for nuclear energy will not also be easy to realize. At the
System stabilization
0.5 trillion yen
0.1 trillion yen
costtime of this writing Japan has not yet resumed nuclear-plant operations,
Current status
FY 2030
and many uncertain factors remain in any decision to resume in the
future. (On Aug. 11, 2015, however, Sendai nuclear power plant’s No. 1
Source: Reference material for the 10th meeting (June 1, 2015) of the Subcommittee on Longterm Energy Supply-Demand Outlook
reactor restarted its operation, becoming the first case of a nuclear
CHART ４
restart since 2013.) The electricity market will be
Energy demandPrimary energy supply
increasingly deregulated, so nuclear energy’s
Nuclear power
generators’capacity
489years)
million kl(or situation if their operations stop Aboutin 40
future status in a liberalized market will be
Renewables, 13-14% AAAAAAA
About 5,030 million kl
difficult to project. Above all, many people
down roughly 13% fromAAAAAAAthe pre-measure
figure )AAAAAAA
If all existing nuclear power (plants
cease year
operations
after
the 4011-10%
years lifetime
limit, by around 2030 total generation
Nuclear,Electricity demand
361 million kl
energyremain concerned
about the safety of nuclear
capacity of working Ultimate
facilities
will
fall
by
roughly
half
comparedtotoday,
andtoroughly20%
byaround2040.
consumption(Total volume of generated enGeneration
capacity(kW)
About 326 million kl
Electricity
25%
Uncompromising energy conservation About 1,278 billion kW
Natural gas,Three
aboutgenerators
18%(Ohma, Shimane-3, TEPCO
energy. The Outlook
indicates
important
role
5,000
About 196.1thebillionkWh Breakdown
byHigashidori) already approved for construction
Popula3on
total
down 17% from the figure for energy sources) energy
the pre-measure
Electricity about 28%
4,500
will be added to the existing 43 reactors.
AAAAAAAAAAA
that nuclear
energyAge(could
play year
in the20‐24Conservation, about 1
AAAAAAAAAA
Coal, about 25%
4,000
supply-demand structure that JapanAAAAAAAAAA
desires, but
When operations end in 60 years lifetime
28.6%
AAAAAAAAAA
gasoline,of
Heat, gasoline,
3,500 Heat,
The percentage
LPG, about 3%
nuclear
power
to
the
total
city
gas, power
etc., in75%
city gas, etc., 72%
manychallenges
remaininmakingithappen.Renewables, 19-20
generated
2010
3,000
Versus total
All 43 reactors,
Nuclear, 18-17%)
Oil, about 30%
2,500 ( power generation
Economic
growthexcluding those alreadycurrent 9.7 trillion yen as the consumption of fossil fuels can fallsignificantly with wider use of renewable and nuclear energies, andconservation measures take effect (Chart 3).
Increases in generating capacity were considered for each renewable
resource. The goal figures for geothermal, hydro and biomass arepractical maximums, very challenging to achieve. For solar and wind,higher goals than those proposed by the Outlook may lead to anincrease in purchasing costs, making the reduction of total electricity
costs more difficult. The suggested figures here are meant to answer thequestion of increasing renewables as much as possible, making themost of their advantages without compromising economic efficiency.

1.7%/year

2,000
1,500
1,000

FY 2013(Actual figure)

FY 2030((after implementation of conservation measures))

FY 2030

designated fordecommission

When operations end in 40 years
lifetime limit

500
010 013 016 019 022 025 028 031 034 037 040 043 046 049 052 055 058 061 064 067 070
20
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
(FY)

Source: Reference material for the 10th meeting (June 1, 2015) of the Subcommittee on Long-term Energy Supply-Demand
Outlook

44 Japan SPOTLIGHT • September / October 2015

Realizing the
VisionElectric power,

Electric power,
966.6 billion kWh

about 980.8 billion kWh

LNG, about 22%

Coal, about 22%
In addition to renewable and nuclear energies,
the new Outlook sets desired future shares forOil, about 2%
other resources in total power generation: 27%
for liquefied natural gas (LNG) fired thermal,
26% for coal-fired thermal, and 3% for oil-fired

TABLE 1

thermal. The component ratio for the total primary energy supply forfiscal 2030 was also clearly delineated: oil 30% (40% in 2013), coal
25% (25%), natural gas 19% (24%), nuclear 10-11% (0.4%), and13-14% for renewables (8%) (Table 1 & Chart 5). By pushing energy
conservation and the use of renewables and nuclear, Japan will likely
raise its energy self-sufficiency (the sum of nuclear and renewables) toabout 24% by 2030. At the same time fossil energy, mainly from oil andnatural gas, is on track for significant decreases in both quantity andshare compared with fiscal 2013 levels.
With more conservation and wider use of non-fossil energies, Japan’s
carbon-dioxide emissions will decrease substantially. Specifically, annual
energy-derived CO2 emissions will drop by 25% between fiscal 2013
and fiscal 2030, from 1.24 to 0.93 billion tonnes. Japan’s greenhousegas emissions will fall by 26% over the same period due to measures toabsorb and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases other than carbon
dioxide. Japan’s official goal for emissions reduction is 26%. With fiscal
2013 as the benchmark year, the reduction will be in line with those of
the US and Europe (Table 2).
It is important to discuss how the benchmark year should bedetermined in the first place. As Europe and the US have selected theirs
in terms of their respective supply-demand structures, Japan selected
FY 2013 as the benchmark year, and will work to persuade other nations
that this is reasonable in terms of its supply-demand structural situation.
In comparing goals for emission cuts, the costs involved (especially thatfor marginal abatement costs) are as important as the reduction targets.
Judging from the results of past actions, Japan’s marginal abatement
costs are higher than those of its Western peers, and in that sense the
new goal is competitive. The goal for Japan should even be consideredvery ambitious and challenging.
The latest Outlook describes ways to almost fully satisfy the 3E goals
set up for it. Balancing these components will be a very delicate task. For
example, increasing renewables to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions andraise energy self-sufficiency could raise electricity costs. Reducing
electricity costs by adding coal-fired thermal capacity will likely increase
emissions and reduce energy self-efficiency. The energy supply-demandbalance the Outlook sets out this time is as far as Japan can practicallygo to achieve the 3E goals in a balanced way.
So it will be important to accomplish the supply-demand structurethat the Outlook sets out as desirable, and the challenge will be in theexecution. From where Japan is today, achieving the energy-savings
goals, expanding renewable capacity and using nuclear energy safely will
not be easy. Strong policy, joint public-private efforts and public
understanding will all be essential. The international energy landscapeincludes many uncertain factors, such as the influence of future
deregulation on the power and gas markets, the instability of oil prices,volatility in the Middle East, and the shale revolution. In that context
Japan will continue to work hard to realize the most desirable energy
supply-demand structure for its future.

Conclusion
It is significant that the Long-term Energy Supply and Demand
Outlook, which METI has officially endorsed, clearly points up theimportance of realizing the ideal structure and enhancing means to that
end. It is important to undertake specific measures and actions to move
forward despite energy situations replete with uncertainty both at home

Total primary energy supply (million kl)
FY 2013

FY 2030

Oil

216

40%

145

LPG

16

3%

13

3%

Coal

136

25%

123

25%

Natural gas

131

24%

92

19%

Nuclear

2

0.4%

51-48

11-10%

30%

Renewables

41

8%

64-67

13-14%

Total

542

100%

489

100%

Note: All 2030 figures are approximate.

Source: Reference material for the 10th meeting (June 1, 2015) of the Subcommittee on Longterm Energy Supply-Demand Outlook
CHART 5

Trends in total primary energy supply(million kl)









































5HQHZDEOHV
1XFOHDU
1DWXUDOJDV
&RDO
/3*
2LO






With increasing use of energy from renewableof nuclear
sources,
plant


 the resumption
operations and improvements in the efficiency ofthermal systems, fuel costs for FY2030 will
decrease
to 5.3 trillion
 yen. Atthe sametime, FIT

purchasing costs will grow by 3.7-4.0 trillion yen
due to the increasing volume of renewable energy,
as will system stabilization costs by 0.1 trillion factorselectricity
yen. These
will reduce
costs by2-5% compared with FY 2013.
Fuel costsAsthe Cost Examination Working Group did,thermal generators was calculated using estima
like shown at right.
Figures for nuclear fuel are those of the Cost Ex
per kWh.



)<

FIT purchasing costs
energy, purchasing costs were calcula
Electricity
below
Source:9.7Referencematerial
for costs
the 10th
meeting (June 1, 2015)Forof solarthe Subcommittee
on Longtrillion yen
referring
to cost-reduction
figures by the Co
FY 2013 levels
term Energy Supply-Demand Outlook
Group. For other energy sources, FIT purchasi
TABLE 2

Fuel costs

set on the assumption that purchasing would
and prices for FY 2030 were calculated (Note 2)Comparison 5.3
oftrillion
reduction
targets of greenhouseFY 2015
yen
trillion yen
22 yenwind
gas9.2emissions
among
Japan,US Ground& EU
FIT purchasing costs
36 yenMarine wind(thermal and nuclear)(over 20kW)(over 20kW)(renewables)

Compared to 1990

Japan

Draft outline by( advisory
0.5 trillionyen)committee

3.7-4.0 trillion yen

24 yenHydro (new facility;
1,000-30,000kw)to 2013
Compared to 2005
Compared

18.0% System stabilization
25.4%(FY2030)
0.1 trillion
yen

cost

Geotherm
Biomass (burBiomass (b26.0%(FY2030) System stabilization(FY2030)
costs (various co

Adjustment costs related to introducing rene
FY 2013
FY 2030
generated volume18-21%
naturally fluctuates widely we
26-28%
14-16%US terms the total(FY2025)
In practicalcosts of electricity include
right, referring (FY2025)
to figures by the Cost Exam
(FY2025)
depreciation (capital cost), personnel, compensation forSpecifically, they are costs incurred when soperations and the like. Because these factors cannot bereaches 74.9 billion kWh and wind 18.2 billion
35% To eliminate duplications
24% with other costs, 0.1 t
derived from the energy-source 40%
breakdown, here they are
EU constant into the future for comparative purposes.
considered(2).
(FY2030) the sum of (1) and(FY2030)(FY2030)

Note: US and EU submitted their emission reduction goals based on the benchmark year of2005 and 1990 respectively.

Source: Reference material for the 10th meeting (June 1, 2015) of the Subcommittee on Longterm Energy Supply-Demand Outlook

and abroad. To effectively handle the changing landscape, it will benecessary to review the Long-term Energy Supply and Demand Outlook
regularly along with revision of the Basic Energy Plan, which happens
roughly every third year.
There will be many important points to consider in these regularreviews, such as issues in the international energy market, progress inJapan’s resumption of nuclear plant operations, progress in renewablegeneration and use, and related challenges. The basic policy — ofsimultaneously
achieving the 3E goals with safety as a prerequisite —With increasing use of energy from renewable Fuel costs
sources,thefirm.
resumptionof nuclear plant As the Cost Examination Working Group did,shouldremain

operations and improvements in the efficiency of thermal generators was calculated using estima
thermal systems, fuel costs for FY2030 will like shown at right.
Figures forfuel are those
Ken Koyama
chief yen.
economist
and managing
atnuclear
the Instituteof of the Cost Ex
decrease
to 5.3istrillion
At the sametime, FIT director
per kWh.
purchasing
costs Japan.
will grow
3.7-4.0 trillion
yenfields of energy security andEnergyEconomics,
Hisbyexpertiseis in thedue to the increasing
volumeof renewableeconomic/politicalanalysisof global
oil, gasenergy,
and energy markets, with particularas will system stabilization costs by 0.1 trillion
emphasis
on
major
Asia
Pacific
andMiddleEasternyen. These factors will reduce electricity costs
by countries.
2-5% compared with FY 2013.
FIT purchasing costs

お問い合わせ：report@tky.ieej.or.jp

9.7 trillion yen

Electricity costs below
FY 2013 levels

For solar energy, purchasing costs were calcula
referring to cost-reduction figures by the Co

Japan SPOTLIGHT • Group.
September/ October
45FIT purchasi
For otherenergy2015
sources,set on the assumption that purchasing would