Tag Archives: public finance

Powering climate action – the 2016 Fire winners

November 28, 2016 |

 

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 info@financeforresilience.com. 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 info@financeforresilience.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.

Read More

Increased understanding of how finance is mobilized can support efforts to spend resources wisely

November 16, 2016 |

 

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.

This blog is part of a series on climate finance tracking challenges. Read more here.

Sign up for updates to stay informed on this and other aspects of our work.

Read More

Graphic Spotlight: What is the role of public finance in deploying geothermal energy in developing countries?

March 9, 2016 |

 

Despite great potential, geothermal deployment in developing countries has been below expectations since 2010. Geothermal energy has the potential to provide significant amounts of low-carbon electricity in many developing countries and is the cheapest source of available power in some developing countries.

The major barrier is securing early-stage project finance given the scarce public resources available to invest in exploration and development. While some countries are pursuing policies to liberalize energy and electricity markets to attract private investment, significant difficulties remain.

CPI analyzed three case studies on behalf of the Climate Investment Funds, with the aim of helping policymakers and development finance institutions understand which policy and financing tools to use in order to enable rapid and cost-effective deployment of geothermal for electricity.

Role of public finance in deploying geothermal energy

Our case studies show that the increase in tariffs needed to provide sufficient returns to incentivize private investment can be entirely offset by public measures addressing specific risks. This graphic illustrates how these public risk mitigation measures (orange) combine to result in a final levelized cost of electricity for a privately developed project (dark grey) that is even lower than what it would have been for the state to develop it (light grey).

Read More

Making Climate Finance Count – Increasing Transparency in the Lead Up to COP 21

November 23, 2015 |

 

As 2015 draws to a close, there is a strong hope that the Paris climate summit could represent a turning point in the global fight against climate change. To support discussions, Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) recently published two reports.

Earlier this week, we released our Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2015, the most comprehensive information available about which sources and financial instruments are driving investments, and how much climate finance is flowing globally. This report sheds light on global progress towards the level of low-carbon and climate-resilient investment needed to constrain greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to levels consistent with the 2°C global temperature goal and to adapt to an already changing climate. It also illuminates how different types of public support are addressing different needs, and how they are interacting with private sources of finance. Such understanding can position policy makers and investors to more effectively manage the risks and seize the opportunities associated with climate change.

We found that global climate finance flows reached at least US$391 billion in 2014 as a result of a steady increase in public finance and record private investment in renewable energy technologies. Public actors and intermediaries committed US$148 billion, or 38% of total climate finance flows. Private finance increased by nearly US$50 billion in 2014 and resulted in a record amount of new renewable energy deployment, particularly in China. About 74% of total climate finance flows, and up to 92% of private investments were raised and spent within the same country, confirming the strong domestic preference of investors identified in previous years’ Landscape reports and highlighting the importance of getting domestic frameworks for attracting investment right.

This global outlook provides a complementary, big picture perspective to a recent report prepared by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in collaboration with CPI to provide an up-to-date aggregate estimate of mobilized climate finance and an indication of the progress towards developed countries’ commitment under the UNFCCC to mobilize US$100 billion annually for climate action in developing countries by 2020. While US$100 billion will not meet the climate challenge by itself, it is currently the primary political benchmark for assessing progress on climate finance and an important starting point for getting us on a low-carbon, climate-resilient pathway.

Our estimates indicate that climate finance reached US$62 billion in 2014 and US$52 billion in 2013, equivalent to an annual average over the two years of US$57 billion. Bilateral public climate finance represents a significant proportion of this aggregate, provisionally estimated at US$22.8 billion on average per year in 2013-14, an increase of over 50% over levels reported in 2011-2012. Multilateral climate finance attributable to developed countries is estimated at US$17.9 billion in 2013-2014. The remaining finance consists of preliminary and partial estimates of export credits and of private finance mobilized by bilateral and multilateral finance attributable to developed countries.

The OECD report makes a significant contribution to informing international discussions and enhancing transparency on climate finance ahead of COP 21 in Paris in two ways. It provides a robust number including preliminary estimates of mobilized private finance for the first time and does so based on a transparent methodology. This represents real progress. In 2011, when we began gathering data for our Global Landscape of Climate Finance reports there was very little in the way of common methodologies and definitions. Since then, we have worked with the OECD, a group of Multilateral Development Banks, the International Development Finance Club and the UNFCCC Standing Committee on Finance and others, to develop definitions and methodologies that have helped to close data gaps, improve comparability and increase understanding of climate finance.

Ultimately, of course, it is up to international negotiators to decide what should and should not count towards the US$100 billion commitment and how best to approach the wider climate challenge. Our hope is that the lessons learned from our recent climate finance reports can help to further improve the transparency and comprehensiveness of climate finance measurement and reporting to develop tracking systems that ultimately help governments to spend money wisely.

A proper measurement, tracking, and reporting system is a critical building block to ensure finance is used efficiently and targeted where it is needed the most. By shedding light on the intersection between public policy, finance and private investment, we will continue to help decision makers from developed, developing and emerging economies optimize the use of their resources.

This article was originally published on Climate Change Policy & Practice, a knowledge management project of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). See: http://climate-l.iisd.org/

Read More

Driving geothermal development in developing countries

August 26, 2015 |

 

Geothermal has the potential to play a big role in a low-carbon energy transition but while deployment of wind and solar has taken off in recent years, deployment of geothermal has remained steady but unspectacular for decades. This despite the fact that it is broadly cost competitive with fossil fuel alternatives across the world and is the cheapest source of available power in some developing countries with rapidly growing energy demand.

Among developing countries, only Turkey and Kenya exceeded forecasts for geothermal deployment over the last five years. Elsewhere, over 3GW of power has been left in the ground, mainly in Indonesia and the Philippines but also in new markets such as Chile and Ethiopia.

We estimate that approximately USD 133 billion would be needed for investment in geothermal in developing countries if current plans to build 23 GW of capacity by 2030 are to be met. The scarcity of public finance available for geothermal in these countries is a barrier to achieving these targets but private investment could fill this gap. Many governments in countries with significant resources have liberalized energy and electricity markets and this could result in an investment opportunity of USD 60-77 billion, with average returns on equity of 14-16% if the main project related risks are addressed.

Our analysis, commissioned by the Climate Investment Funds to improve understanding of the role of public finance in different developing countries, suggests that governments and development finance institutions would need to provide the rest of the USD 133 billion in the form of financing and risk mitigation tools needed to attract private investment in these countries.

This requires a 7-10 fold increase in current allocations of public money to the sector for future development. In addition, while significant efforts at the global level to increase public finance commitments for the early stages of geothermal project development mean they now account for 11% of current commitments, in order to meet demand, finance allocated to this stage of projects should be up to 17% of public finance distributed and targeted particularly at the test drilling phase. Part of current public finance could also be refocused on the management of resource risk during the later stages of project operations.

In our most recent report, we draw lessons from a year of analysis of geothermal projects and markets in developing countries to identify how public finance from governments and development finance institutions can be used to best drive private investment. Key factors include:

  • Supportive regulatory frameworks for geothermal, the basic condition for growth together with well-designed feed-in-tariffs aligned with the project‘s lifetime or loan terms available in the local debt market
  • Differentiated public support during the exploration phase, supporting early public exploration and tendering of proven fields in markets with challenging investment environments, while incentivizing early stage exploration in more mature private markets
  • Favorable loan conditions and measures to unlock its provision

Following these recommendations could increase energy access and put those developing countries with geothermal resources on a path to green growth. Our case studies of geothermal projects suggest this can be done without increasing the levelized cost of electricity generated, and thus power tariffs for consumers. When national and international public measures lower financing costs and address specific political, currency and exploration risks relevant for the private sector, private development models can deliver power at similar or lower cost than public development models. This allows governments to increase energy supply and access while committing only 15-35% of what they would invest were they to develop the whole project through local public utilities, freeing resources for further investment. This is something that should be at the forefront of the minds of national energy policymakers and the development banks that support them.

A version of this blog first appeared as an opinion piece on Environmental Finance.

Read More

Eight steps to improve understanding of climate finance flows in your city or country

May 21, 2015 | and

 

Understanding how much climate finance is flowing, where it comes from and how it flows to which activities and projects on the ground is not only useful at the global level to help understand progress towards climate finance goals. It can also help countries, regions, cities, and organizations to understand their progress toward meeting their own development, economic, and environmental goals by:

– Establishing a baseline against which to measure progress, reveals current patterns of investment and any blockages in the system.
– Revealing interactions between public finance and private investment which can inform decisions about how to redirect flows from business-as-usual to low-carbon and climate-resilient investments.
– Helping international partners see how they can support domestic efforts.
– Identifying opportunities to increase climate finance and providing an important basis for policymakers to develop more effective policies, particularly when combined with analysis of what is working or not in different interventions.

Climate Policy Initiative produces the most comprehensive overview of global climate finance flows available. We have also carried out in-depth mapping of climate finance flows for Germany and Indonesia. The following eight steps summarise the approach we take to map climate finance flows in different contexts. Although the process is complicated because of significant data gaps and inconsistencies, the principles behind such mapping are relatively simple. Applying them can improve understanding of climate flows. They are:

1. Decide what finance you want to measure.The first step is to decide which activities you want to focus on. For some you’ll also need to decide what makes a particular activity low-carbon or climate-resilient. This is relatively easy to do for something like renewable energy generation. However if you want to understand how much finance is flowing towards more climate-resilient, productive and sustainable land use, you will have important decisions to make on what you want to include and what you should leave out.

2. Set the geographical scale.Are you going to track finance flowing to these activities at the international, national, regional, city or organizational level?

3. Decide whether to track public finance, private investment, or both. Information on some climate finance flows (e.g. official development assistance) is easier to track than for others and there are some – like private investment in energy efficiency – where very little reliable data is available at all. But ideally a mapping exercise for a country, region, or city would include both public and private flows to the extent possible because understanding how these different sources of finance interact is essential to making best use of your financial resources.

4. Consider total investments, not just additional investment costs.Research into the additional costs of low-carbon interventions above higher-carbon alternatives is useful and has even shown that some low-carbon transitions may be cheaper than business-as-usual. But, when dealing with the practicalities of tracking and managing climate mitigation and adaptation investment for planning purposes, it is simpler to consistently track current total investment rather than additional investment costs.

5. Focus on project-level primary financing.Project-level primary financing is finance going to activities and projects on the ground and the best indicator of progress on climate action. Aggregate data does not allow the same insights as project-level data while data on secondary market transactions (e.g. refinancing, selling stocks) represents money changing hands. Such transactions can play an important role in providing project developers with capital to reinvest in further projects but they do not necessarily represent additional efforts to reduce emissions or increase climate resilience.

6. Track public framework expenditures.Many projects would be impossible without the development of national climate strategies, specific regulations and enabling environments for investment but these costs are not seen at the project level. Tracking them is important to have a real understanding of how much public finance is flowing to and needed for climate action.

7. Exclude public revenue support for projects such as feed-in tariffs and carbon credit revenues.While these revenue support mechanisms are often essential for climate action they pay back the investments made in climate-relevant projects and activities that you are already counting. Including investment costs and policy-induced revenues would therefore mean you were counting the same flows twice.

8. Exclude private investments in research and development.These are investments that private actors try to recover when selling their goods and services so counting them in addition to investment costs would, once again, mean you were counting the same flows twice.

The quality of your mapping exercise will depend on the quality of the data you have. Fragmented data in the land use sector is the reason we are working with the European Forestry Institute and Climate Focus, in an upcoming publication, to provide policymakers with a series of mapping tools to understand potential entry points for climate finance flows in their land use sectors. Often these countries are aware of the opportunities to shift from unsustainable to sustainable land use but lack financing strategies to deliver their goals. This project will help them identify which fiscal and financial mechanisms are available to unlock new investors and more efficient investments.

We are happy to assist countries, cities, or organizations looking to better understand their climate finance flows by undertaking mapping exercises, just get in touch.
 

Read More

3 Reasons for Measured Optimism about Climate Finance

December 4, 2014 |

 

A version of this blog first appeared on Responding to Climate Change: http://www.rtcc.org/2014/11/21/three-reasons-to-be-optimistic-about-climate-finance-flows/

This year’s UN climate talks opened in Lima earlier this week and for those who hope the world can avoid dangerous climate change, some major recent announcements have given cause to celebrate. Last month, the world’s two largest emitters – the U.S. and China – reached a deal to tackle emissions. Then, the U.S., Japanese, and UK governments joined others by pledging billions to the Green Climate Fund to help developing nations deal with climate change. These political announcements are clearly timed to inject momentum into the negotiations taking place in Lima. But key questions remain unanswered: What do these financial pledges mean in terms of existing investment in a low-carbon economy future? How should money be spent? And are we on the right track?

At Climate Policy Initiative, our analysis of global climate finance flows helps to identify who is investing in climate action on the ground, how, and whether investments are keeping up what is needed to transform the global economy. We have just released the latest edition of our Global Landscape of Climate Finance report. It shows global climate finance has fallen for the second year running and we are falling further behind the level of investment needed to keep global temperature rise below two degree Celsius – but reveals some positive news as well.

Firstly, that nations around the world are investing in a low-carbon future in line with national interests. Last year, climate finance investments were split almost equally between developed and developing countries, with USD 164 billion and USD 165 billion respectively. With almost three-quarters of total investments being made in their country of origin, the majority of climate finance investments are motivated by self-interest—either for governments or businesses. Motivations include increasing economic productivity and profit, meeting growing energy demand, improving energy security, reducing health costs associated with pollution, and managing climate risk including investment risks.

Secondly, that getting domestic policy settings right offers the best opportunity to unlock new investment. When policy certainty and public resources balance risks and rewards effectively, private money follows. In 2013, private investments made up 58% of global climate finance with the vast majority (90%) of these being made at home where the risk to reward ratio is perceived relatively favorably. Addressing the needs of domestic investors offers the greatest potential to unlock investment at the necessary scale. This is not to say that international and domestic public policies, support and finance don’t have complementary roles to play. It is significant, for instance, that almost all of the developed to developing country finance we capture in our inventory of climate finance flows came from public actors. But ultimately, it is getting domestic policy frameworks right, with international support where appropriate, that will drive most of the necessary investment from domestic and international sources.

Thirdly, that despite a fall in overall investment, money is going further than ever. While investment fell for the second year running, this is largely because of decreased private investment resulting from falling costs of solar PV and other renewable energy technologies. In some cases, deployment of these technologies is staying steady or even growing, even though finance is shrinking. In 2013, investment in solar fell by 14% but deployment increased by 30%. Technological innovation is reducing costs and because of this renewable energy investments in some markets are cheaper than the fossil fuel alternatives, particularly in Latin America. Achieving more output for less input is one of the basic foundations of economic growth, so this is great news. From solar PV, to energy efficiency and agricultural productivity, growing numbers of low-carbon investments are competing with or cheaper than their high-carbon counterparts. This despite a highly uneven playing field in which global subsidies to fossil fuels continue to dwarf support for renewables and where carbon prices do not reflect the true costs of emitting CO2.

So what do our findings mean for the recent China/U.S. deal and Green Climate Fund pledges? Increasing political pressure on other countries to keep pace in terms of their domestic action and international commitments is an encouraging sign as the deadline nears for finalizing a new global climate agreement in Paris just one year from now. Reaching a global accord offers the best prospect for tackling climate change. But we must recognize that international agreements are themselves, guided by collective national interests. There is clear recognition that international public resources should complement and supplement national resources where these are insufficient. But if we are to bridge the investment gap they should also be focused on finding ways to lower costs, boost returns and reduce risks for private actors. Public finance alone will not be enough to meet the climate finance challenge.

Many private investors are ready to act. In September, over 300 institutional investors from around the world representing over $24 trillion in assets called on government leaders to phase out fossil fuel subsidies and implement the kind of carbon pricing policies that will enable them to redirect trillions to investments compatible with fighting climate change. Businesses and citizens are investing, and technological innovation means more and more investments are making economic and environmental sense. Accompanying innovation with policy, appropriately targeted finance and new business models can build the momentum and economies of scale to make the low-carbon transition achievable. The low-carbon transition isn’t just a way of reducing climate risk, it also represents a huge investment opportunity.

Read More

Geothermal: Risks shouldn’t overshadow benefits

November 12, 2014 |

 

Geothermal is competitive. Its low cost per unit of energy generated, when compared with other renewable energies and fossil-fuelled generation make it an attractive option for policy-makers in developing countries to meet growing energy demand.

It is also compatible with energy grid needs. Its high capacity factor and its ability to continuously feed into the energy system makes it particularly suitable for reliable baseload production while its potential flexibility makes it suitable to respond to fluctuating supply from technologies such as wind and solar PV depending on a power grid’s needs.

Geothermal costs compared to other energy technologies Cost comparisons between energy technologies show that geothermal requires high up front investment but can provide low cost power

However, risks in the early exploration and drilling phases, combined with high investment costs, have slowed the scale up of the technology and limited the private investment that is needed if geothermal is to play a bigger role in the energy system. Climate Policy Initiative’s (CPI) recently published analysis of global geothermal markets and financing models finds that public finance plays the most prominent role in financing geothermal. 76-90% of all project investments utilize some aspect of public debt or equity support, as well as support instruments.

Read More

In Germany, one billion euros of government money go a long way

December 13, 2012 |

 

One of the major themes coming out of Doha at the UNFCCC Conference of Parties last week was the role of climate finance. Basically, if we want to reduce emissions and scale up renewable energy and energy saving measures, we need to figure out where the money to do these things will come from.

With public budgets strapped, this challenge increasingly becomes about how we can direct limited public funds to unlock private investment in a targeted, effective way.

In Germany, a recent CPI study showed that 1.5% of GDP, or 37 billion Euros, is invested in climate-related activities like renewable energy and energy efficiency. More than 95% of that investment comes from businesses and households. This small share of government spending is striking. However, it would be wrong to conclude that the government plays no role.

Read More

Expanding green finance: What’s already working and what’s next?

December 5, 2012 |

 

Despite reaching $364 billion in 2010/2011, global investment to combat climate change still falls far short of the level required to stabilize global temperature rise to 2°C. According to the IEA, we need to reach $1 trillion each year of incremental investment in energy supply and demand technologies, and more will be needed to achieve climate resilient development globally.

Policymakers and others will need to scale up what’s working, and explore new approaches to pool more capital from the private sector. However, investors’ real and perceived risks are increasing as a result of stalled international negotiations and national policy frameworks reforms.

On the 20th and the 21st September, Climate Policy Initiative hosted the Second Meeting of the San Giorgio Group (SGG) on the island of San Giorgio Maggiore in Venice to discuss what’s already working in green finance, what’s not working, and to identify new options to bridge the gap between supply of climate investment and the demand for mitigation and adaptation finance. Here is a summary of some of the highlights.

Read More