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.

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

Energy Efficiency as an Energy Resource for Nepal

It goes unsaid that Nepal is undergoing a drastic energy crisis. More than 40% of the Nepalese population is not connected to the electric grid. For the rest of Nepalese citizens who do have access to electricity, they face upto 16 hours of daily blackouts. Energy conditions are even worse due to periodic shortages of petroleum products and natural gas. Energy shortages are anything but new to Nepal, and the issue continues to appear dire. While the population and economy grows, the demand for electrical energy continues to skyrocket.

 Although, in a certain light, there is still reason to hope; Nepal is blessed with an abundance of natural resources. For instance, studies suggest that Nepal has tremendous potential for hydro power. In addition, Nepal also has significant potential for wind and solar energy. If we are able to tap into these natural resources, then there is no doubt that we shall be able to achieve energy independence and also to do so in an environmentally sustainable manner. While this should be our goal, and I am optimistic that we will be able to achieve in the future, it is imperative that we also try to seek immediate solutions to mitigate the energy shortage we face today.

  Solution to this maybe much closer to us then we think. Energy Efficiency is the single most resource that has the potential to help mitigate some our energy needs in significantly shorter period of time. Energy Efficiency essentially means meeting same or more of the electrical demand needs with less amount of energy without compromising the quality of service.

 Nepalese culture does not view energy efficiency as an energy resource. We generally perceive it as something secondary. An energy resource for most of us is tangible, like a hydropower station, generator or solar panels. Instead, if we look at energy resource as a mechanism that helps to manage our energy needs, then energy efficiency will be on the top of the list as one of the cheapest resources that can yield immediate effects.

 Typical examples of energy efficient practices would be replacing energy hungry incandescent lights with LED or CFL light, using higher voltage transmission lines to reduce losses, replacing or tuning up compressors and motors to work efficiently and many more. These simple-enough measures, if applied in our homes and factories, would add up quickly and result in large savings. This saved energy can be used to meet the extra load and thus decrease load shedding time.

 Although these techniques are straightforward, it is much harder to materialize in real life because they depend on individuals’ commitment and finances. Energy efficient products usually cost much more than their alternative. Although investing in them can be recouped many times over the products lifetime, people usually still opt for cheaper alternatives. Research has shown that human beings generally are more inclined to make their decisions based on short-term impacts. Thus, when one sees that energy efficient products are much expensive than alternative, they have very less incentive to buy them. This is where government and policymakers have an important role to play.

 Leaders in the field of energy efficiency in Nepal have already begun important discussions. The Nepal Energy Efficiency Program (NEEP) was established in 2009 with the support of German Development Cooperation (GTZ). This organization works independently to promote energy efficiency in different sectors of the Nepalese economy by launching different programs for both industrial and residential sectors. NEEP’s Energy Standards & Labels program provides energy efficient ratings for electrical products in order to better inform the customers about efficiency. In the industrial sector, NEEP advocates for energy audits and works closely with industries to identify custom energy efficiency measures. Meanwhile, Nepal Electrical Authority (NEA) also conducts a few of its own programs to support Energy Efficiency by promoting CFL and LED light bulbs.

 Unfortunately, these programs have been suffering through a lackluster performance because their creators have only conveyed Energy Efficiency as an alternative, rather than an immediate need. Rather than a mere suggestion, energy efficiency should be portrayed to policymakers as the direct means of fulfilling the electrical energy demand in Nepal. Most of the energy efficiency programs that exist today are supported by the INGO or foreign governments. Although this is a start, energy efficiency programs in Nepal are only scheduled to exist as long as they are supported by an external party. Relying on someone’s outside philanthropy is not a sustainable business model. We need to realize that energy efficiency practices are a lucrative investment opportunity for Nepalese customers as well as their energy providers. Together, we need to develop market-based business or policy opportunities that are self-sustaining and make a direct impact.

 One of the possible market-based options would be to have NEA ‘buy’ the energy saved from energy efficiency. For example, a contractor could pledge to save a certain measure of KWh at the market rate of electricity. The contractor would then go to households and industries to promote energy efficiency methods to the public. If the energy saving is realized in that period of time then the contractor gets the money from NEA. This ‘reverse auction’ is a proven technique that has been employed in different energy markets across the world.

 These energy efficiency methods could also be funded by a modest increase in the utility bill. This rate could be adjusted as a progressive tax, which minimizes the burden on families with low-incomes. Since energy efficiency programs help to keep the rate of electricity low over a long period of time, this ratepayer-funded model is often looked at as a viable solution to fund energy efficiency practices.

 The potential for energy efficiency in Nepal is not just limited to energy savings. Proper management of energy resources tremendously benefits the environment as well. There numerous spill-over benefits of energy efficiency help us to save our money and better our lifestyle. With these outstanding benefits, it is imperative that the more direct action would be taken towards energy efficiency in Nepal.

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Need to ramp up energy efficiency efforts

The power system in the U.S. is amidst a major crisis. Some of the major challenges that our energy sector is facing include meeting the ever-increasing energy demand, maintaining old energy infrastructures and finding cheap sustainable energy sources. Although various renewable energy sources, smart grids and other technologies offer viable long-term solutions, Energy Efficiency (EE) measures offer the most cost-effective and immediate means to reduce our energy consumption.

 EE is an attractive measure for both power utility companies (PUC) and consumers. Power companies’ major challenge is to fulfill the peak demand. If the peak demand increases beyond its supply capacity, power companies would need to invest in additional electric generators, which are often very expensive. Also, they would have to worry about increases in transmission costs due to increased congestion. Effective EE practices could smooth out the load, making it manageable for the utility companies. Consumers on the other hand, would be required to pay less in utility charge for reduced electric consumption.

 Industries are one of the major consumers of electric power. Various manufacturing industries are often energy intensive and require large volumes of electricity to operate. As the cost of electricity directly affects the overall cost of the product, it is in the interest of the industries to keep the prices of electricity low. Also, even a few percentage savings in large energy bills would be a substantial amount of money, which would be a strong incentive for industries to implement EE measures. Research has shown that EE measures in manufacturing industries could decrease their energy consumption up to 25%. This incredible potential in savings should make EE measures extremely attractive to all parties.

 Although EE is very cost-effective, it has been lacking in implementation. Split incentives, requirement of upfront capital costs, ignorance among PUC and consumers have been shown to block investments in this sector. To overcome this market failure, governments have created various policies that act as incentives for industries, as well as PUC, to invest in this sector. There is a need to assesses the cost-effectiveness of such policies for industrial energy efficiency by demonstrating power companies’ savings from investments in EE measures. Such data could confirm that the existing policies are working as planned and could also illustrate potential models for other states and nations to emulate. If the results show that policies are costly and ineffective, the project would enable policymakers to assess their options and to take necessary steps toward other energy-saving possibilities.