One of the many topics of discussion on the agenda for this weekend’s discussions at the G20 leader’s summit will be on how to kickstart the global economy. Leaders should take a serious look at energy efficiency as a means of increasing productivity and boosting growth.
Mainstreaming energy efficiency in International Finance Institutions could lower cost of meeting green growth goals
July 7, 2017 | Karoline Hallmeyer
June 28, 2017 | Barbara Buchner
This week, we posted an in-depth summary of the main insights from this year’s San Giorgio Group, a CPI event organized in collaboration with the World Bank Group, China Light Power (CLP) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and kindly hosted by Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei. The San Giorgio Group brings together key financial institutions actively engaged in green, low-emissions finance for frank discussions on the most pressing policy and investment issues related to scaling up climate action. Here are some of the key takeaways:
- If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it. We have made a lot of progress in recent years on getting a clearer idea of climate finance flows, and of investment risks related to climate change, through efforts by CPI and other groups. However, there are still data gaps. These are particularly prevalent for adaptation finance, as well as in defining mobilization of climate finance and understanding more broadly how to track progress towards implementation of the Paris Agreement. The main challenge remains to make tracking helpful for decision makers and to ensure that they have ownership of it. There is a need to further integrate climate change considerations into daily decision-making and the financial system more generally, to enable investors to understand both the risks and opportunities related to climate change. Legislation such as France’s recent climate-reporting law, which introduces mandatory climate change-related reporting for institutional investors, will enable investors to access data on companies’ climate risks and use this information to allocate capital. In this vein, balancing the need for robust disclosure data and tools and the need for simple, comparable, and standardized formats will be key. It is clear that the discussions started in the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures, which aim to create one set of standardized metrics for climate reporting, will need to continue. Elsewhere, national-level data and tracking is an important starting point to realign public budgets and incentives to promote climate action particularly if it is tailored to countries’ own definitions and accounting systems.
- Green banks or greening banks? There was a consensus among San Giorgio Group attendees on the importance of refocusing attention on domestic actors, especially in light of national commitments made as part of the Paris Agreement and given the fact that most green investment is raised and spent domestically. There was a discussion of whether new entities such as green banks are needed, or whether mainstreaming climate considerations into existing institutions’ practices can address the current climate finance gap. In many countries, the latter may prove more efficient. Additionally, streamlining international climate finance architecture to reduce overlaps, improve efficiencies, and channel more finance through domestic organizations could increase the effectiveness of the system as a whole.
- Cities need better access to finance but for new technologies. Many of the actions needed to prevent dangerous temperature rise and adapt to climate change involve cities. Cities and their many layers of decision-making present a challenge but also a huge investment opportunity. There was a consensus among San Giorgio Group attendees on the need to increase cities’ access to finance and better target city-relevant solutions, and discussion on whether there is an opportunity for cities to leapfrog to better, more innovative technologies.
- With the right investment products and a pipeline of bankable projects, investors are ready to act on climate. The investment needs for transitioning to low-carbon, resilient economies are such that public finance alone will never be enough. Green growth requires increased finance from mainstream private investors, some of whom already invest at significant levels in some green technologies in some countries. There is capital available and many investors looking for opportunities. Innovative financial instruments that blend public and private finance will help but simplicity, scale, and speed are essential.
May 23, 2017 | Mariana Campos
Dimitri Szerman explains the initiative, which takes place in the South of Bahia
Encourage forest restoration in the northeastern Brazilian of Bahia – this is what the South of Bahia project aims to. Supported under INPUT, it is a collaboration between Climate Policy Initiative (CPI), Brown University, Floresta Viva Institute and Santa Cruz State University. The survey project that began in 2015 and includes nearly 3,000 producers will evaluate payment for environmental services to rural producers of the cacao region of Bahia. Dimitri Szerman, CPI analyst, coordinates part of the work related to economic issues. He explains the project in the following interview.
WHAT IS THE SOUTH OF BAHIA PROJECT’S OBJECTIVE?
DIMITRI SZERMAN: This project consists of payments for environmental services, with two main objectives. The first objective is to understand how to motivate rural producers to restore their properties with species from the Mata Atlântica biome. Also, we seek to understand more about the biome’s natural vegetation restoration process. Our focus is how sustainable rural development aligns with compliance with the Forest Code.
WHO IS INVOLVED IN THE PARTNERSHIP? AND WHAT IS CPI’S CONTRIBUTION?
DS: The project is the result of a partnership between CPI, Brown University, Floresta Viva Institute and Santa Cruz State University. The multidisciplinary team of researchers is composed of ecologists, agronomists, sociologists, and economists, such as me. CPI’s contribution is to design financial incentives for restoration and to analyze rural producers’ choices and preferences.
“This involves constant care. Generally,
the challenge is greatest in the driest areas or
where pastures have prevailed for many years”
HOW IS THE PROJECT RECEIVED BY RURAL PRODUCERS?
DS: Very well. We have already been collecting field data for one year. We selected 3,000 producers at random from the region to participate in the project. Most of them agreed to talk to our team and we have already completed two rounds of interviews with each one of them. Our implementing partner’s team in the field has contributed to such a high participation rate. Sixteen young agronomists from the region, who recently graduated from the State University of Santa Cruz, were selected for the Floresta Viva Institute survey team.
WHAT ARE THE OBLIGATIONS OF RURAL PRODUCERS WHO WILL RECEIVE FINANCIAL INCENTIVES TO RESTORE VEGETATION IN THEIR PROPERTIES COMPLETE?
DS: They must set aside a half of a hectare of their property for the restoration, and look after this area for the restoration to occur. This includes removing species that are not woody, planting seedlings, and, in some cases, enclosing the area so that cattle do not disturb it. This involves constant care. Generally, the challenge is greatest in the driest areas or where pastures have prevailed for many years.
“The availability of labor workers
is an obstacle for restoration”
WHERE IN BAHIA IS THE WORKING GROUP BEING CONDUCTED AT THIS MOMENT? HOW FREQUENTLY HAVE YOU TRAVELED TO BAHIA?
DS: The survey was launched in 26 municipalities in the cacao region of Bahia. On average, I travel every three months to supervise the field work. I attend meetings with producers and communicate directly with the team to better understand the reality on the ground. Good communication with the team in Bahia is fundamental to the quality of the work, since I have to understand what is going on in the field and they have to understand the survey’s requirements.
PLEASE EXPLAIN IN GENERAL TERMS THE METHODOLOGY THAT IS BEING APPLIED FOR THE PROJECT.
DS: The methodology is the same as in a controlled clinical trial, known as Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT). The idea is to test different types of incentives for restoration, as well as different restoration methods. To do so, the 3,000 producers are sorted to receive different types of incentives. As such, it is possible to isolate the effects each type of incentive has on the acceptance of the restoration program, as well as on its fulfillment.
“After the drought that hit the region last year
many farmers started to better understant the forest’s
importance in building resilience for their crops”
ARE THERE ANY PRELIMINARY RESULTS?
DS: We are still analyzing the data, but we already have a good description of the producers’ profiles. Some features are surprising. For example, the average age of respondents is 59 years – they are older than we might have expected.
We have also observed the availability of labor workers is an obstacle for restoration. Taking care of these areas and planting seedlings demand a lot of work. If you are a small producer living in a rural area, it is not always easy to find people to work on your property. We have also learned that after the drought that hit the region last year many farmers started to better understand the forest’s importance in building resilience for their crops. Let’s see how much this influences their attitudes towards restoration.
May 3, 2017 | Julia Ellis
The Paris Agreement marked a new era in climate policy, and with it, a new imperative to accelerate climate action. Developing countries need support to build the capacity to create the legal, policy, financial, and institutional frameworks to mobilize public and private finance quickly, and at scale. Delay will increase the economic cost and threaten the feasibility of the Paris goals.
CPI is attending the Global NDC Conference 2017 in Germany today and excited to see the range of support available to countries looking to accelerate implementation of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and raise ambition on green growth. We are also in Berlin to promote a new partnership called GNIplus that we believe can provide governments with the best available policy, technical, financial, governance, and legal expertise to support countries implementing NDCs by combining the strengths of three world-leading organizations – Climate Policy Initiative (CPI), AECOM, and Baker McKenzie.
GNIplus responds to this urgent need by drawing on its partners expertise to support governments to embed the fundamental regulatory and financial prerequisites of long-term, sustainable growth and development, and mobilize private investment. GNIplus will deliver concrete, practical actions to: reform legal, policy, financial, institutional, and governance frameworks; stress-test the designs of infrastructure projects; and develop financial tools and instruments to de-risk investment and mobilize private finance at scale.
The GNIplus partners are already collaborating deeply with governments, multilateral agencies, and private investors to facilitate climate action and will work together to support and enhance existing national strategies and initiatives to maximize impact, starting in Kenya.
So what makes GNIplus unique?
GNIplus partners have a proven ability to implement actions on the ground. We have the skills and experience to draft policy and legislation, assess the technical feasibility of infrastructure projects, access public finance, engage private investors, and design public-private financing instruments. GNIplus will deliver tangible implementing actions, not another report that will be shelved.
2. PRIVATE SECTOR FOCUS WITH PUBLIC SECTOR EXPERTISE GNIplus combines public and private sector experts and experience, with a deep understanding of their goals, requirements, and processes. GNIplus can therefore facilitate public–private engagement and support the design of effective policies and financial instruments to mobilize private investment and enable the private sector to take up low-carbon, climate resilient investment opportunities.
3. SPEED AND RESPONSIVENESS
Our long history of in-country expertise and operational presence on the ground in 162 countries means that we are ready-to-go. GNIplus is also a flexible initiative that can keep pace with the private sector; our experts can respond to identified needs, fill gaps and complement other national and international actors – offering bespoke solutions with potential to scale. We will promote swift, effective action by collaborating with other actors to maximize synergies, build on lessons learned and avoid duplication. GNIplus will therefore accelerate NDC implementation.
4. SUPPORTING NATIONAL OWNERSHIP & BUILDING CAPACITY
GNIplus partners understand the importance of country ownership and the need for NDC implementation to be nationally driven. We have extensive local networks and existing collaborations with national governments, communities, NGOs, development banks, and investors. GNIplus partners have a track record of building local expertise and capacity. By using a ‘train the trainer’ model we aim to ensure local policy-makers, lawyers, economists, engineers, and others are able to take ownership of the NDC implementation plan. GNIplus will make a sustainable, long-term impact.
5. GLOBAL REACH
GNIplus partners have extensive local presence and knowledge through our offices in 162 countries. We are also deeply connected at a global level, with existing collaborations with global actors – from UN bodies to multilateral agencies, development banks, climate funds, and international investors. This enables us to advise national governments on the requirements of international law; international climate finance flows, actors and processes to support access to finance for NDC implementation, and the requirements of the Paris Agreement.
Every day it seems that generation from variable renewables hits new milestones. In March, California hit a new record in renewable energy production by supplying 56% of midday demand. And every day, prices for new projects seem to get cheaper. In February, an auction for a 750MW solar park in Madhya Pradesh attracted bids as low as $49/MWh, the lowest yet recorded in India. In the Middle East and Chile meanwhile, auction prices have fallen below $30/MWh.
These low prices have been driven by dramatic declines in technology costs, which in turn have driven a boom in deployment, creating a virtuous cycle of scale that drives down cost. Last year, 161GW of intermittent renewables were deployed around the world, bringing global cumulative capacity to 2,006GW.
A low-cost, low-carbon grid seems within our grasp.
In our report, Flexibility: the path to low-carbon, low-cost electricity grids, we find that a future grid powered mostly by the sun and wind will be cheaper than one fuelled by natural gas — even without a price on carbon. While a gas-based system may cost $73/MWh, a renewables-based system — including nearly $30/MWh of flexibility costs to integrate a high share of renewables — would be competitive at $70/MWh.
Our analysis was commissioned by the Energy Transitions Commission, which this week published its report, Better Energy, Greater Prosperity. Our key findings support the ETC’s challenge to business, governments and investors to seize this opportunity for a more prosperous economy while cutting annual carbon emissions from energy from 36GT today, to 20GT by 2040.
Decarbonization of our electricity is a cornerstone of the ETC’s strategy to transform the global energy system, which is responsible for 75% of total greenhouse gas emissions. Cleaning up our electrons is also one of the most achievable transition pathways identified by the ETC in its report and will account for almost half of those emissions reductions. However, this seemingly attractive future is by no means guaranteed.
Just last week, the US Energy Secretary Rick Perry ordered a study into impacts of state wind and solar subsidies on baseload coal and nuclear, with the assumption that these plants are a proxy for grid reliability.
Our view is that grid reliability depends not on large inflexible baseload generation, but increasingly on the ability of the grid to be flexible, adapt to changing conditions and a different set of risks. In fact we see flexibility, as a key enabler of a decarbonized electricity system.
A lack of flexible capacity is often cited as a constraint on the amount of variable renewable energy we can add to the grid. But in our report, we found that most systems already have enough latent flexibility to meet over 30% of their electricity demand from solar and wind. Moreover, technologies that exist today could support much higher shares of wind and solar; 80% or more.
Flexibility needs are well covered over the next 10 years in the four regions we looked at — California, Germany, Maharashtra and the Nordic region. But over time, higher penetrations of renewables will require more flexibility, especially for daily and seasonal balancing.
In California, ramping and daily balancing are expected to become pressing concerns as the state increasingly depends on solar to meet power needs. By some estimates, in 2040 utility- and residential-scale solar is expected to supply 36% of the state’s electricity, while wind at 30%, should constitute the second-largest resource.
California has ample flexibility in its electricity system; responsive demand, interconnections with neighbouring states, and significant existing hydro and gas capacity can all help reduce the cost of meeting the state’s flexibility needs. We have estimated the cost of providing one form of flexibility — daily shifting on peak days — could be reduced by 30%–50% by 2040 by making use of these existing flexibility resources.
So what does this mean for policymakers? We believe that they should be emboldened to raise their renewable energy ambitions, knowing that there are already many sources of latent flexibility in their electricity systems, and that the costs of renewable energy integration are likely to remain low.
But policymakers should also begin to make changes to planning, regulation, and market design— getting that last 20% of carbon out of the grid is likely to be the hardest step on the path a cost-effective low-carbon electricity systems.
In addition, a portfolio of approaches is needed. Shifting consumer demand or utilizing existing hydroelectric dams may be inexpensive, but they are limited in scale. Moreover, some technologies are great for shifting energy on a short time frame, but would be very expensive to shift energy across weeks, much less seasons. A combination of options will be needed to meet the full suite of flexibility needs demanded by a low-carbon grid.
Planning and market design of our electricity systems need to evolve to align investment decisions with the goal of decarbonization. In other words, if we make investments today that aren’t suited to meet the needs of the grid in 15 years, those investments could potentially be stranded down the line.
Finally, flexibility technologies are rapidly evolving. We need to make sure our markets and policies create long-term incentives for innovation, so that we can unlock low cost options to balance the low carbon grid of the future.
How are European policymakers and investors embracing the ‘new normal’ in EU renewable energy policy?
December 7, 2016 | Brian O'Connell
Costs have declined dramatically in the renewable energy sector and deployment levels are at an all-time high. But why does the outlook for future investments seem so mixed across Europe?
Today, policy and finance issues are now arguably at least as important as technology, with policy now the key determining factor in ensuring continued growth in renewables. Policymakers are not in the same position as they were five years ago however when the costs of technologies such as solar were much higher and policy decisions had very different outcomes. Even the costs of offshore wind are falling significantly as indicated by DONG’s recent winning bids for the Borssele 1 and 2 projects at €72.2/MWh and Vattenfall’s astonishing €49.9/MWh bid for Kriegers Flak.
In future, investment will need to come from a variety of sources and not just from large utilities which has traditionally been the case. This means that policy will need to change dramatically to adapt to this new, broader range of potential financing options.
Our latest report which is published today, European Renewable Energy Policy and Investment 2016 finds that the cost of financing will be driven as much by the types of investors as by how investors evaluate project risks, returns and policy. In other words, how investment is divided among utilities, institutional investors, households or companies is one of the most important factors determining the average cost of renewable energy to the system.
In Germany and Spain, for example, very different policy incentives were concentrated on very specific investor categories, ie, small end users in Germany and the utility sector in Spain. Both approaches achieved high levels of deployment in a relatively short time but were not necessarily cost-effective.
What does this mean for policymakers & investors?
We found that there is plenty of investment available to meet and exceed current EU and country level targets, if the right policy is in place. Policy will determine not only how much investment is available, but also the mix of investors and its cost. Policies set in motion today could develop, or close off, options that could be major sources of investment and technological advancement in the future.
- Long-term targets are essential for attracting investment so a decrease in targets can be devastating for a developer since sunk development costs may need to be written off to reflect the reduced likelihood of completing the project
- The adoption of renewables across the EU has been fuelled by a varied mix of investor types, often introducing new entrants and causing a change to the previous ownership structure of energy systems.
- There is enough investment appetite in Germany to comfortably meet ambitious targets provided that support levels and other key policies are set appropriately. This gives comfort to policy makers that their ambitious targets can be achieved (and potentially exceeded), however there is insufficient capital for just one or two categories of investors to meet the targets on their own so policies must appeal to a broader investor base.
- Now is a good time to encourage investment with base rates at historically low levels, which in turn depresses equity return requirements, however policies are not in place to encourage this investment in many regions. Interest rate increases will necessitate higher support levels.
- Political risk perception is increasing and has a negative impact on investor appetite. Across the majority of EU regional contexts and renewable technologies we see a negative outlook of eroding investment sentiment.
- Misalignment of policies within EU member states and across EU directives is having unintended consequences, damaging the outlook for a rapid, coherent energy transition.
What does this mean for policymakers?
Policy should always encourage the lowest possible cost investment from the most appropriate set of investors in keeping with four main objectives:
- Balance cost-effectiveness and deployment
- Balance short-term cost-efficiency versus longer-term development.
- Develop technology mixes and options.
- Shape the industry to achieve industrial objectives and/or public support.
An important part of this work was the regional perspectives, looking specifically at two countries, Germany and the UK, and two regions, the Nordics and Iberia. We also looked at three widely deployed technologies, solar PV, onshore wind and offshore wind and have forecast investor appetite within those categories for each region up to 2020.
While the UK has a solid track record with building renewable power assets and is the global leader in offshore wind, its slow progress with decarbonising the heat and transport sectors means that it is unlikely to hit its 2020 renewable energy targets with the current suite of policies.
Over the last six years, the British government has changed several key renewable energy support policies including making cuts to feed-in tariffs for small and large-scale renewables, the transition away from a 14-year-old green certificate scheme with support levels set by government (the Renewables Obligation or RO) towards a Contract for Difference (CfD), with support levels set by competition. These changes have caused a period of uncertainty among investors.
If the current macroeconomic environment persists, investor interest in the UK market will likely mean sufficient capital is available to fund the existing project pipeline. However, it is likely that there will be less competition for projects as some investors are put off by political uncertainty, meaning less downward pressure on the cost of capital than there otherwise might have been.
Germany has the third-highest level of renewable energy installations by capacity in the world behind the US and China. It also has a range of ambitious targets that exceed the minimal levels set out by the EU. These targets include achieving 35% of generation from renewables in 2020, 50% by 2030 and 80% by 2050, and keeping CO2 levels at 60% of 1990 levels by 2020.
While Germany’s goals for onshore wind and solar remain ambitious, it is clear that policymakers are setting their sights on offshore wind as a major new source of energy. Our analysis indicates that these targets are, overall, achievable.
Now that amendments to Germany’s renewable laws have been announced uncertainty has reduced, although it will take some time before the significance of these changes is fully understood. Once investors fully understand the impacts of policy changes, then it is very likely that the ambitious renewable deployment targets can be achieved.
The last decade has seen a period of upheaval in Spanish and Portuguese politics, and in particular in their once-thriving renewable energy sectors. Following the global financial crisis, governments in both countries have taken greater control of rates of growth in the renewable sector. The investor pool has shrunk, chilled by uncertainty and losses because of a series of regulatory changes.
In Portugal, recent M&A transactions suggest that international investor confidence in the sustainability of the regime remains, however, as in Spain, short term political objectives remain uncertain.
There are important lessons to be learned by policymakers both in the peninsula and outside about the importance of long-term planning, transparent regulation made by independent regulators, and a balance between the interests of all stakeholders in the energy system. These will be instructive if the countries are to pursue the next phase of decarbonisation successfully in the 2020s. Reducing the tariff deficit and increasing interconnection with the rest of Europe will be vital steps towards strengthening the case for more renewables.
The Nordic region’s objective is to accelerate and implement a smooth energy transition in a market characterized by general over-capacity, low wholesale prices, flat or limited demand growth and most of the EU 2020 targets already achieved. In such a market, maintaining the momentum of the transition is not an easy task. In fact, investors that had initially piled into the Nordic wind market due to its intrinsic resource value, have more recently been hurt by low prices due to the oversupply of green certificates. These have resulted in investor losses, reduced incentives for new wind investments and an overall reduction in investor interest in the region.
However, investors and capital remain available, while the intrinsic long-term value of Nordic wind resources remains world class.
December 1, 2016 | Will Steggals
Christmas came early yesterday in Brussels, with the release of some heavy reading for the EU’s parliamentarians to digest over the festive season. Or at least that was the more jovial take on the launch of the EU winter package from Maroš Šefčovič, the EU vice-president in charge of the Energy Union (pictured).
Targets to cut energy use 30% by 2030, the phasing out of coal subsidies and regional cooperation on energy trading are central to the proposals, which updates the regulations and directives that support targets set out in 2014 as part of the Energy Package 2030.
Whether this gift is not just for Christmas will be down to the EU parliamentarians who have two years to debate these proposals and implement them.
So where does it leave us with the growth of renewables, the underpinning for a decarbonised power sector? If the EU meets its 2030 target, 50% of electricity should be renewable compared with an EU average of 29% today. That target remains unchanged, so those engaged in producing clean energy for Europe’s electricity grid should be reassured – up to a point.
A great deal was made of scrapping priority dispatch for renewables after that proposed change was ‘leaked’. In the end, the Commission merely soften its language but the outcome remains the same on priority dispatch, implying that policymakers think that renewable generation should be more responsive to the market.
Yesterday, Šefčovič and the Commissioner for Climate Action and Energy Miguel Arias Cañete both acknowledged that renewables need to be more integrated into wholesale markets, and those markets need to be more coordinated with each-other. Specifically, the package encourages member states to:
- ensure that renewables participate in wholesale and balancing markets on a “level playing field” with other technologies. In particular, the new package removes the requirement for renewables to be given priority dispatch over other generation types (which most, but not all, member states currently abide by). It instead requires dispatch which is “non-discriminatory and market based”, with a few exceptions such as small-scale renewables (<500kW). In addition, renewables should face balancing risk and participate in wholesale and balancing markets.
- increase integration between national electricity markets across the EU. Requirements include opening national capacity auctions to cross-border participation and an interconnection target of 15% by 2030 (ie, connecting 15% of installed electricity production capacity with neighbouring regions and countries). Earlier this year, the Commission established an expert group to guide member states and regions through this process.
What does this all mean for investors? The obvious concern is that removal of priority dispatch and exposure to balancing markets will increase revenue risk for renewables generators.
So, why is the EU removing these rules on priority dispatch once the mainstay of the Commission’s wholesale market rules? The main argument is to help reduce the costs of balancing supply and demand, and managing network constraints. Generally, it is most economic to dispatch renewables first because their running costs are close to zero regardless of whether they have priority dispatch.
But, when there is surplus generation, the most economic option is sometimes to curtail renewables ahead of other plant. For example, turning down an inflexible gas plant only to restart and ramp it up a few hours later can be expensive and inefficient. By contrast, wind generators can be turned down relatively easily.
Therefore, giving renewables priority dispatch can sometimes increase the overall costs of managing the system. When renewables were a small part of the market, any inefficiencies caused by priority dispatch were small and easy to ignore, while it helped reduce risks around renewables investment. But now renewables are set to become the dominant part of electricity markets it is harder to ignore.
Nevertheless, risks around balancing for wind can cause real headaches for investors. In our report from earlier this year, Policy and investment in German renewable energy we found that economic curtailment could increase significantly, potentially adding 17% to onshore wind costs by 2020.
The amount a generator is curtailed depends on a wide range of uncertain factors which wind investors have little or no control over (eg, electricity demand, international energy planning, network developments and future curtailment rules).
What could happen next?
So to maintain investor confidence (and avoid costly lawsuits) existing renewables investments need to be financially protected as rules are changed. There are many ways to do this. For example, priority dispatch status could be grandfathered for existing generators (as the winter package suggests) or, as set out in our recent report of Germany, generators could be fully compensated for curtailment through “take-or-pay” arrangements.
More generally, very clear rules around plant dispatch and curtailment are needed to avoid deterring investment. Ideally, dispatch will be determined by competitive, well-functioning balancing markets, where renewables are paid to be turned down based on what they offer, rather than by a central system operator curtailing without compensation.
The move to integrate renewables into balancing markets means they will compete with other options to balance the system such as storage and demand-side measures. These flexibility options should benefit from the sharper price signals and greater interconnection implied by winter package. But there is no clear consensus yet on the right business and regulatory models to support investment in flexibility. However, CPI is currently working on a programme as part of the Energy Transitions Commission to explore the role of flexibility in a modern, decarbonised grid and will be publishing our findings soon.
Ultimately, there is an unavoidable trade-off in designing electricity markets: it is very difficult to provide incentives for generators, storage and the demand-side to dispatch efficiently through market mechanisms without also exposing them to some risk. Yesterday’s announcement in the winter package means more countries will have to face this dilemma.
Disclaimer: Unless otherwise stated, the information in this blog is not supported by CPI evidence-based content. Views expressed are those of the author.
TAGS: balancing market, climate change, climate finance, curtailment, economic curtailment, electricity, energy finance, EU Energy Union, EU winter package, flexibility, policy, priority dispatch, renewable energy, renewable energy finance, renewables, solar, united states, utilities, wholesale markets, wind
The Paris Agreement marks the start of a new era in climate policy, with commitments to climate action made by governments, private sector entities, and NGOs around the world. However, for these commitments to be realized and a corresponding transition to a 2-degree pathway achieved, trillions of investment will need to be mobilized – and quickly, with a significant portion coming from private sector sources.
Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) is at the forefront of work to respond to the urgency of the climate challenge by targeting scarce public resources to mobilize significant private finance into low-carbon, climate-resilient development. As part of its climate finance program, CPI serves as Secretariat to The Global Innovation Lab for Climate Finance (The Lab), which convenes public and private stakeholders to design, pilot, and accelerate transformative financial instruments, with the aim to drive billions of dollars of private investment into climate change mitigation and adaptation in developing countries.
The Lab and its initiatives have been endorsed by the G7 and have raised nearly USD 600 million in seed funding for renewable energy, energy efficiency, and climate resilience projects. Currently, the Lab is seeking ideas for its next cycle that can drive finance in India and Brazil. The Lab also presents The Fire Awards, which identify and accelerate powerful, early-stage pilots and businesses that can unlock private finance for clean energy and green growth around the world.
Indeed, in the six months following the Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) Future of Energy Summit in New York, there have already been several successful outcomes for the 2016 Fire Winners, which kicked-off implementation of work plans to achieve growth goals, with support of Fire Working Groups in May:
- In September, the team behind Affordable Green Homes, a project to catalyze a market for affordable green housing in Sub-Saharan Africa, was invited to participate in the formal launch of a UN and private sector platform to generate financing solutions for the Sustainable Development Goals. At the launch meeting, led by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, International Housing Solutions (the global private equity firm leading Affordable Green Homes) was recognized for its innovative approach to drive investment in and deliver energy and water efficient housing. The team will continue to help shape the direction of the UNSG platform.
- The Developing Harmonized Metrics for the PAYG Solar Industry initiative championed by Anna Lerner of the World Bank Group, also moves forward, achieving a major milestone with the recent publishing of a white paper titled, How can Pay-as-you-go Solar be Financed?. The paper, which was one of the main outputs of the Fire Working Group, explores a number of the risks and challenges associated with structured finance solutions for the PAYG sector. On 11th October, the paper was also presented and discussed in a dedicated session at the BNEF Future of Energy EMEA Summit in London. The session was led by Itamar Orlandi (Head of Applied Research, BNEF). Panelists included Fire Working Group Members, David Battley (Director of Structured Finance, SunFunder) and Peter Mockel (Senior Industry Specialist, Climate Business Department, IFC), as well as Giuseppe Artizzu (Head of Global Energy Strategy, Electro Power Systems Group), Mansoor Hamayun (Chief Executive Officer, BBOX), and Manoj Sinha (Co-Founder and CEO, Husk Power Systems). The white paper is available on the BNEF website.
- An announcement was released on the planned scale-up of the Investor Confidence Project (ICP), an Environmental Defense Fund led initiative to standardize and increase investment in energy efficient buildings. The scale-up plan is founded on a new partnership with the Green Business Certification, Inc. (GBCI), which also administers the LEED, EDGE, PEER, WELL, SITES, GRESB, and Parksmart certification programs. The new partnership aims “to achieve a true, worldwide standard to unlock the potential of energy efficiency.” The Fire Secretariat will host a dedicated 2 hour roundtable in London on 7th December to discuss and build momentum for the new partnership. The roundtable will comprise Fire Working Group Members and key stakeholders in the investment and real estate sectors. If you would like to attend, please let us know at firstname.lastname@example.org. More information on the new partnership is available on the ICP and decentralized energy
- Finally, Grips, which provides reliable, clean energy beyond the world of fossil fuels and public grids, was supported by a Fire Working Group to make connections with over a dozen investors, which will help the initiative move forward. In recognition of its innovative approach to deliver competitive, clean energy to industrials in developing countries, Grips’ CEO, Alexander Voigt, was also invited to participate in the technical workshop to set up a UN-led platform to scale-up finance for the Sustainable Development Goals.
These achievements mark major milestones for the 2016 Fire Winners, as they continue to blaze forward and grow their impact. For those interested in learning more about any of the 2016 Fire Winners or to be involved in upcoming consultations, please contact us at email@example.com.
“Getting access to international experts and advice made it possible to accelerate the launch of the KPI framework, grow our partner network and identify new useful applications for the data platform.” –Anna Lerner, World Bank Group
“Winning FiRe has clearly accelerated the implementation of Grips. Through the increased exposure to an international audience of financial and energy experts we have received an increasing number of project leads, partnership requests, and financing offers. We are currently advancing discussions on all sides.”–Arvid Seeberg-Elverfeldt, Grips
The Global Innovation Lab for Climate Finance identifies, develops, and pilots transformative climate finance instruments, with the aim to drive billions of dollars of private investment into climate change mitigation and adaptation in developing countries. Made up of public and private sector members, the Global Lab and its initiatives have been endorsed by the G7 and have raised nearly USD 600 million in seed funding for renewable energy, energy efficiency, and climate resilience projects.
The Fire Awards accelerate powerful, early-stage pilots and businesses that can unlock finance for clean energy and green growth. Climate Policy Initiative serves as the secretariat for the Fire Awards alongside the Global Innovation Lab for Climate Finance (The Lab). The Fire Awards and The Lab are funded in part by Bloomberg Philanthropies, and Bloomberg New Energy Finance provides in-kind support.
November 24, 2016 | Gireesh Shrimali
Last week, I was in Marrakesh speaking at this year’s UN climate change conference, COP22, where I witnessed an important transition in moving from talk to action. Just a few weeks before the start of COP22, the Paris Agreement officially entered into force – the historic international agreement for action on climate change that emerged from COP21 last year. While COP21 was about promises and commitments, COP22 was about working out the details to put those promises in place.
Under the Paris Agreement, India has pledged that renewable energy will be 40% of the country’s expected electricity generation capacity in 2030, along with a 35% reduction in carbon intensity by 2030 from 2005 levels. In addition, India has also set one of the most ambitious renewable energy targets of all – 175 GW of renewable energy by 2022, including 100 GW of solar power. These important targets are not only good for the climate, but can also help meet the energy demand of India’s rapidly growing economy and population.
However, a lack of sufficient financing for renewable energy in India may present a formidable barrier to achieving these targets. This was a key item of discussion at COP22.
An upcoming report from Climate Policy Initiative shows that in order to meet the target of 175 GW of renewable energy by 2022, the renewable energy sector in India will require $189 billion in additional private investment, a significant amount. The potential amount of investment in the renewable energy sector in India is $411 billion, which is more than double the amount of investment required. However, in a realistic scenario, the amount of investment expected falls short of the amount required by around 30%, for both debt and equity.
In this context, and as India moves to implement its commitments under the Paris Agreement, the work of the India Innovation Lab for Green Finance is increasingly important. The India Lab is a public-private initiative that identifies, develops, and accelerates innovative finance solutions that are not only a better match with the needs of private investors, but that can also effectively leverage public finance to drive more private investment in renewable energy and green growth.
The India Lab has recently opened its call for ideas for the next wave of cutting-edge finance instruments for the 2016-2017 cycle, in the areas of renewable energy, energy efficiency, and public transport. Interested parties can visit www.climatefinanceideas.org. The deadline to submit an idea is December 23rd.
The India Lab is comprised of 29 public and private Lab Members who help develop and support the Lab instruments, including the Indian Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, the Ministry of Finance, the Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency (IREDA), the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank, and the development agencies of the French, UK, and US governments.
In October 2016, the India Lab launched its inaugural three innovative green finance instruments, after a year of stress-testing and development under the 2015-2016 cycle. They will now move forward for piloting in India with the support of the Lab Members. The three instruments include a rooftop solar financing facility, a peer-to-peer lending platform for green investments, and a currency exchange hedging instrument. Together, they could mobilize private investment of more than USD $2 billion to India’s renewable energy targets.
Now that the Paris Agreement has been ratified and the real work begins, the India Innovation Lab for Green Finance can help India transition from talk to action by driving needed private investment to its renewable energy targets. Visit www.climatefinanceideas.org to learn more and submit your innovative green finance idea by December 23rd.
A version of this first appeared in the Huffington Post.
November 16, 2016 | Dan Storey
Developed countries’ goal to ‘mobilize’ USD 100 billion per year by 2020 to address the climate action needs of developing countries will not close the global climate finance investment gap. However, it is an important political benchmark for assessing progress on climate finance within the context of multilateral negotiations. This provides policy makers with both challenges and opportunities.
On one side, reaching more consistent definitions for climate finance and eligible activities will be politically challenging. However doing so could promote transparency and help build trust between countries.
On the other, close scrutiny of the USD 100 billion could help to maximise its impact and help policymakers everywhere to learn lessons about what works and what works better in terms of ensuring international and national public resources drive private investment in climate action.
One word in the negotiating texts best encapsulates both the challenge and the opportunity – ‘mobilize’. The goal to ‘mobilize’ USD 100 billion a year was originally set at the international negotiations in Copenhagen in 2009. Last year’s Paris Agreement also refers to a ‘collective mobilization goal.’
CPI has helped to unpack the diversity of opinions about how this term should be applied. However, few disagree that in part this ‘collective mobilization goal’ is a recognition that implementing countries’ nationally determined contributions will require trillions not billions of dollars. To make this shift, public finance must be catalytic, driving private investment by tackling viability, risk and knowledge gaps that private actors cannot or are unwilling to bear.
In some sectors and markets, this means public finance will need to play more of a leading role in discovering, developing, and piloting new technologies and approaches that do not yet deliver returns sufficient to satisfy private investors, or which are perceived as having unmanageable risks.
Initiatives and studies from a range of organizations have explored different methodological approaches to estimate the extent to which public climate finance, support or policy can be said to have ’mobilized’ private climate-related investments. These include the co-financing approach proposed by multilateral development banks (MDBs), the methodology of the Technical Working Group composed of donors from the OECD member countries that was applied by the OECD and CPI in the “Climate Finance in 2013-14 and the USD 100 billion goal” report, and a CPI report on mobilized private finance for adaptation which explored the legitimacy and feasibility of measuring the more “indirect” impacts of public finance and support on mobilizing finance.
The accounting methods and data provided in these reports are helping countries and individual actors to understand two things. Firstly, what is being counted and what is being excluded in different ’mobilization’ approaches. Secondly, the complex interplay between different sources of finance and the range of actors and instruments involved in its delivery – work that CPI has led since 2010.
The Paris Agreement may also help. It charges the UNFCCC’s Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) with developing accounting guidelines for national-level reporting by 2018 to support better tracking of finance provided and ‘mobilized’ through public interventions.
Reaching agreement will be a complex, technical and politically challenging exercise for the SBSTA but will build on existing work to further enhance transparency around domestic climate finance and allow decision-makers to assess more easily the role different actors in the financial system play in achieving overarching economic and environmental goals.
CPI remains committed to supporting this process and to improving decision makers’ understanding of climate finance flows at the global, national and local levels.
Since 2010, CPI has supported decision makers from the public and private sectors, at international, national and local levels, to define and track how climate finance is flowing from sources and actors, through a range of financial instruments, to recipients and end uses. Providing decision makers with robust and comprehensive information helps them to assess progress against real investment goals and needs. It also improves understanding of how public policy, finance and support interact with, and drive climate-relevant investment from diverse private actors, and where opportunities exist to achieve greater scale and impact.