Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Threshold level of energy consumption to sustain economic growth and high quality of life.



Energy is the intricately related to social and economic development of a country. Most of the infrastructures of development including transport, communication, industries all require energy and the availability of energy plays an fundamental role in determining the level of access general population have to these amenities. Advanced countries use much as 5 to 6 times the average per capita energy than in the developing nations. Many poorer nations suffer from ‘Energy Poverty’ where they lack access to energy required to sustain a proper quality of human life. Providing higher amount of energy in the poorer nations has a huge potential to raise their living standards. Building on this proven correlation between energy use and development, we seek to answer if there is an optimum level of energy use that is enough to sustain a high level of quality of life and economic growth.

Human Development Index (HDI) provides a comprehensive measure of quality of human life in a particular country. It is a composite measure of health, education, income and other components that provides an index for standard of living. HDI for each country is plotted for its energy use (per kg of oil equivalent per capita)[1]. This metric gives an estimate of the amount of energy consumed per person. The relationship is potted in the figure 1 below for each country for the year 2011.

Figure 1: HDI vs. Energy Use (kg of oe per capita)[2] for the year 2011

Figure 1 shows an ‘S’ shaped relationship between the HDI and the per capita energy use of a country. It starts with group of countries that use less than 1500 kg oe per capita with HDI less than 0.75. The group mainly includes developing countries and emerging economies such as Algeria, China, Brazil, Panama, Ecuador. As the energy use increase from 1500 to 2500 there is a linear growth in the HDI up to 0.90 which can be seen with countries such as Chile, Greece, Hungary. However after around 2500-3000 kg of oe per capita energy use the HDI index starts to flat off. The countries that use more than 3000 kg of oe are the more developed and industrialized economies such as Germany, Denmark and others. All of these countries have HDI greater than 0.9 however, their energy use ranges from 3000 to 8000. This shows that there isn’t much correlation between energy use and HDI after 3000 kg oe per capita of energy use.
This has a great significance to both the developing and the developed world. As the developing countries increase their energy use, it is helpful to consider that there is an optimum level of energy resource required to achieve growth. Policy makers can plan for per capita energy use around from 2500 to 3000 kg oe which is enough to sustain growth as shown in the figure. For energy intensive economies, especially that are far right to the chart with countries such as Canada, Luxemburg and US, it is important to realize that their economies might be using more energy than required, and that there is big potential for energy efficiency and energy reduction where the policy makers could focus on.
In addition to HDI and energy use relationship, we could also consider the relationship between energy use per capita and per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) based on purchasing power parity (PPP). GDP PPP is more informative than GDP while comparing different economies as it considers the purchasing power parity in each country.


Figure 2: GPD PPP per capita vs. Energy use (kg of oil equivalent per capita)[3] for the year 2011

Figure 2 shows the relationship between GDP PPP per capita and per capita energy use. Similar to figure 1, it appears as a moderately ‘S’ shaped curve. There are significant numbers of low income and developing nations clustered together who use less than 2500 kg oe and have less than 15,000 GDP PPP. These countries include same countries that appeared in figure 1. As the energy use increases from 2000 to 3500, we see an increasing linear relationship between energy use and increase in GDP PPP. Within this particular range, the GDP increases from 20,000 for Hungary to 40,000 for Switzerland. However the GDP PPP stays flat for any amount of increase in energy use after 3500 of energy use per capita.

This follows on the conclusion that we derived from figure 1, that higher energy use after 3000 per capita has very little relation on the human development or economic growth. According to the figure 2, per capita energy use of US stands around 7000 per capita, which enables it to achieve GDP PPP of $45,000, but there is ample evidence from other countries like Switzerland, Germany, Austria that US could get the same level of GDP with energy use around 3500 per capita.

To better understand the relationship between GDP PPP and energy use, one could take the ratio of the two quantities. This ‘new’ metric tells you the amount of GDP PPP the country achieved for each unit of energy spend. It is closely related to the concept of energy efficiency, where the maximum benefit is achieved per unit of energy. The comparisons between the countries are shown in Figure 3.


Figure 3: Ratio of GDP PPP per capita and Energy use per capita

Figure 3 differs in that it shows how much capable the country is to turn each amount of energy into GDP. According to the figure, Columbia ranks the top with the ratio of 13.23 which means that for each unit of energy use, Columbia was able to make $13.23 on its GDP PPP. Other high ranking countries include Peru, Ireland, Switzerland, Botswana, Panama with their ratio around 12. US ranks pretty low with its ratio of 6.03 which is close to Czech Republic, New Zealand and Malaysia. China scores pretty low at 3.65 along with South Africa and Iraq. Turkmenistan is the lowest with the ratio of 1.7.

The figures above shows any country that has energy access around 2500-3000 kg oe per capita increases its chances of achieving high HDI and GDP PPP. That task however is monumental, especially when 19% of the population does not have access to electricity and 38% depend on traditional biomass for energy[4]. Finding the right balance between energy use and growth is a challenge set for both developing and developed economies and this data provides a valuable tool for both to work with.







[1] 1 kg of oil equivalent (oe) = 11.63 kWh
[2] Data visualization created through raw data available through UNDP and World Bank data.worldbank.org
[3] Data visualization created through data available through World Bank data.worldbank.org

Monday, January 27, 2014

Short Commentary: Vermont’s Renewable Energy SPEED program and its issue with RECs



Vermont’s renewable energy program- ‘Sustainably Priced Energy Development Program’ (SPEED) was enacted by the Vermont legislature in 2005 in pursuant to the long term energy policy goals of Vermont as provided in 30 VSA §202a. The SPEED program is created in 30 VSA §8005 with the goal to ‘maximize the benefit to ratepayers from the sale of tradable renewable energy credits that may be developed in the future’. The Vermont legislature amended the statute in 2012 that no longer contained required the Vermont utilities to retain the renewable energy credits[1]. This allowed for the Vermont utilities to sell their renewable energy credits (REC’s) to out of state utilities. There is where a number of environmentalists and professionals have cried foul[2].

Critics have argued to go far as to call the Vermont’s SPEED system a ‘sham’[3]. They point that this system essentially allows for the REC’s to be counted twice, first when the utilities in Vermont sign contracts with the renewable energy developers and additionally when they sell those RECs to out of state utilities. By selling the credits to other states, the ‘green power’ produced from the renewable companies is effectively counted as ‘brown power’ thus increasing the carbon footprint of the state. This system also sends wrong price signal to the other states, which discourages the development of renewable projects in these states, which is contrary to the whole idea of establishing programs such as SPEED and RECs.

This program however has been able to provide significant benefits in Vermont. The SPEED program has been successful in incentivizing investments in renewable energy. The revenues from the sale of RECs have been instrumental in providing significant savings to the ratepayers in Vermont.

The question raised is if Vermont is gaming the system for its own good. In simple terms it does not appear to, RECs are essentially an economic good that the Vermont utilities sell in the free market to the buyer at a fair price. Vermont gets to build more renewable energy plants while at the same time help fulfill the needs of other state’s goals to achieve their level of renewable energy standard. This however is morally and economically unsound, the whole system of RECs works with the credits being scarce goods, if the units are being traded for more than once then it automatically multiplies the amounts of RECs produced for nothing. This will make it look in that there is twice as much as renewable energy projects than there actually is. This also undermines the need of others states to develop their own renewable energy projects.

The state of Connecticut recently passed a legislation that restricted the trade of RECs from Vermont. This a step in the right direction which provides strong message for VT to align its policies accordance to the spirit of the statute than defrauding the system for its short term gain.