Sustainable development
Paragraphs

The historical process of rural electrification in China can be divided into three stages. The first stage lasted from 1950 until the end of 1970s, when policies of economic reform and liberalization were introduced. Rural electrification was slow, yet impressive progress was made under strict central planning. The second stage encompasses the last two decades of the 20th century, during which time rural industrialization proceeded full force, with investment mainly from local rather than central government. The third stage began at the turn of the century and included large scale consolidation and upgrading of rural grids, funded by a variety of sources. This further improved the quality of electricity service and extended access to remote rural corners of the country. The process of rural electrification has now neared its end, having become almost fully integrated into the power sector in China.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Working Papers
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development Working Paper #60
Authors
Rebecca J. Elias
David G. Victor
Hisham Zerriffi
Paragraphs

As part of PESD's ongoing research on power sector reform, the program has focused on the special role of independent power projects (IPPs). Many countries institute reform with the goal of attracting private (usually foreign) investors in new generating capacity. IPPs, rather than across-the-board reform, are usually the mechanism employed; yet the IPP market has been highly volatile in the last decade and has evaporated in most countries in recent years.

Private investment in electricity generation in developing countries grew dramatically during the 1990s, only to decline equally dramatically in the wake of the Asian financial crisis and other troubles in the late 1990s. The Program on Energy and Sustainable Development at Stanford University has undertaken a detailed review of the IPP experience in developing countries. The study has sought to identify the principal factors that explain the wide variation in outcomes for IPP investors and hosts. It also aims to identify lessons for the next wave in private investment in electricity generation.

This article presents the conclusions and analysis of the study of the experience of investment in greenfield IPPs in developing countries. The term "independent power producer" has been used to refer to several types of enterprises, but for this paper, "IPP" refers to a privately developed power plant that sells electricity to a public electricity grid, often under long term contract with a state utility. For this study and report, the lead actors in every IPP are private investors usually foreign, but often with local partners. The classic foreign-sponsored, project-financed IPP has taken root in more than fifty emerging countries that display wide variation in economic, political and social environments. The wide variation in settings for IPPs affords a special opportunity for researchers to probe systematically the critical factors that contribute to outcomes for host countries and for investors.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
N.Y.U. Journal of International Law and Politics
Authors
Erik Woodhouse

Stanford University 
Economics Department 
579 Jane Stanford Way Stanford, CA 94305-6072 

Website: https://fawolak.org/

(650) 724-1712 (650) 724-1717
0
Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
Holbrook Working Professor of Commodity Price Studies in Economics
Senior Fellow, by courtesy, at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research
frank_wolak_033.jpg MS, PhD

Frank A. Wolak is a Professor in the Department of Economics at Stanford University. His fields of specialization are Industrial Organization and Econometric Theory. His recent work studies methods for introducing competition into infrastructure industries -- telecommunications, electricity, water delivery and postal delivery services -- and on assessing the impacts of these competition policies on consumer and producer welfare. He is the Chairman of the Market Surveillance Committee of the California Independent System Operator for electricity supply industry in California. He is a visiting scholar at University of California Energy Institute and a Research Associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).

Professor Wolak received his Ph.D. and M.S. from Harvard University and his B.A. from Rice University.

Director of the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development
Date Label
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

Private investment in electricity generation (so called "independent power producers" or IPPs) in developing countries grew dramatically during the 1990s, only to decline equally dramatically in the wake of the Asian financial crisis and other troubles in the late 1990s. The Program on Energy and Sustainable Development at Stanford University undertook a detailed review of the IPP experience in developing countries to identify the principal factors explaining the wide variation in outcomes for IPP investors and hosts. Erik Woodhouse

presented lessons for the next wave in private investment in electricity generation at "International Political Risk Management: Meeting the Needs of the Present, Anticipating the Challenges of the Future," the fifth installment of an annual symposium sponsored by the World Bank's Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency and Georgetown University's

School of Foreign Service.

Read his general report on Political Economy of International Infrastructure Contracting, Lessons from the IPP Experience and a more detailed analysis of his case selection in a following report titled IPP Study Case Selection and Project Outcomes: An Additional Note.

All News button
1
Paragraphs

During 2004-06, the Program on Energy & Sustainable Development undertook a study of the experience of independent power producers ("IPPs") in developing countries. As part of the study, the Program sponsored a series of country studies. These papers detail the basic contours of the IPP experience in each country and discuss the country factors identified in the research protocol. Additionally, each paper presents the universe of greenfield IPPs in the country, identifies the significant characteristics across which these projects vary, and selects a small number for individual examination.

This paper summarizes the experiences of the countries and projects that were part of the IPP study. Additionally, the paper provides a concise statement of project outcomes and a brief statement of the rationale underlying the analysis of each project. In doing so, the paper aims to gather in one place the disparate outcomes that are discussed in a long series of working papers, thereby providing a transparent and accessible document that will facilitate further study and critique of the original coding for the study, as well as of the analysis of projects and countries.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Working Papers
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development Working Paper #59
Authors
Erik Woodhouse
Paragraphs

Nuclear energy is undergoing a renaissance driven by two very loosely coupled needs; the first for much more energy to support economic growth worldwide, and the second to mitigate global warming driven by the emission of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel. A new generation of power reactors has been developed that are safer, easier to operate, and purported to have lower capital costs. This, coupled with rising costs of fossil fuels and concerns about environmental pollution from fossil fuel power plants, has lead to an increase in orders for new plants, mainly from Asia, but beginning to impact North America and Europe as well.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Working Papers
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development Working Paper #58
Authors
Paragraphs

India stands out in the IPP study as the second largest developing country market and features an evolving legal and regulatory regime created in the early 1990s specifically to promote investment in greenfield independent power projects.  India's electricity sector, which straddles state and federal jurisdictions, and India's experience with a diverse range of greenfield independent power producers have produced dramatic variation in investor strategies and outcomes, ranging from the disastrous Dabhol Power Project in Maharashtra to the modestly successful GVK project in Andhra Pradesh and Paguthan project in Gujarat.  The experience of host governments at the state level has also varied.  Given the political dynamics of the Indian power sector, discussed in detail below, it is hardly surprising that nowhere in India have politicians and state offtakers displayed truly lasting enthusiasm about IPP development.  In each of the four Indian states examined in detail in this paper (Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra), officials have openly and regularly criticized IPPs.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Working Papers
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development Working Paper #48
Authors
Paragraphs

Global warming is one of the most difficult and important challenges facing the international community. To date, the most substantial effort to address this problem is the Kyoto Protocol. Although not adopted by the United States or Australia, this international agreement was adopted and ratified by every other large developed country and entered into force on February 16th, 2005. The Protocol is likely the largest ever international effort to combat a global environmental commons problem.

The Clean Development Mechanism ("CDM") is a market based trading mechanism

created by the Kyoto Protocol that functions by delivering a subsidy to the developing world in return for lower emissions of greenhouse gases. The subsidy offsets the cost of reducing GHG emissions, thereby encouraging less developed countries to emit less GHG than they otherwise would. As such, it represents the first attempt to address a global atmospheric commons problem using a global market. During the past 18 months, the CDM took on roughly the shape that it will likely have during the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol.

The goal of this paper will be to describe in some detail what that broad outline looks like and also what it can teach us about the design of future treaty architectures aimed at the control of GHG emissions and global warming.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Working Papers
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Program on Energy and Sustainable Development Working Paper #56
Authors

616 Serra St.
Encina Hall E415
Stanford, CA 94305

(650) 723-2136 (650) 724-1717
0
Jeremy_Carl_June_2011.jpg

Jeremy Carl is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution whose work focuses on energy and environmental policy, with particular emphasis on energy security, climate policy, and global fossil fuel markets. In addition, he writes extensively on US-India relations and Indian politics.

Before coming to Stanford, he was a  research fellow in resource and development economics at the Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), India’s leading energy and environmental policy organization.

He is the editor of Conversations about Energy: How the Experts See America’s Energy Choices, and his work has appeared in numerous publications including the Journal of Energy Security, Energy Security Challenges for the 21st Century, Natural Resources and Sustainable Development, and Papers on International Environmental Negotiation.

In addition to his work on energy, the environment, and India, Jeremy has written about a variety of other issues related to U.S. politics and public policy; Jeremy’s work has been featured in and cited by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, San Francisco Chronicle, Newsweek, South China Morning Post, Indian Express, and many other leading newspapers and magazines. He has advised and assisted numerous groups including the World Bank, the United Nations, and the staff of the U.S. Congress.

Jeremy received a BA with distinction from Yale University. He holds an MPA from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and did doctoral work at Stanford University, where he was a Packard Foundation Stanford Graduate Fellow.

Research Fellow
Authors
Nadejda M. Victor
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs
For Victor's detailed analysis, presented at a recent G8 Energy summit, click on the International Conference on Energy and Security event or directly download the presentation below.

Three months ago the Russian energy giant Gazprom forced Ukraine to pay sharply higher prices for natural gas. At the time, the story was portrayed as a political struggle for control in Kiev. But last week Gazprom announced it was tripling gas prices in Belarus, a country that is politically close to the Kremlin. Moldova has been forced to accept a doubling of prices over the next three to four years, and the other former Soviet republics are already paying market prices for Russian gas.

The truth is that these price increases are not political. Rather, they reflect worrisome economic and geological facts about Russian gas fields. The Kremlin is not simply trying to use Gazprom to reassert authority in Belarus, Ukraine or anywhere else. There are in fact deep problems with Gazprom -- problems created by its inefficient management and a looming decline in gas production.

Russia controls over a quarter of the world's gas reserves -- more than any other country. Most of the known Russian reserves (about 80 percent) are in west Siberia and concentrated in a handful of giant and super-giant gas fields. Since the early 1970s the rate of discovery for these new fields has been declining. Moreover, output from the country's mainstay super-giant fields is also steadily falling.

Huge investments are needed to replace this dwindling supply, and all the options for new production will prove costly and difficult. New fields in the far north and east of the country are distant from most of Russia's people and export markets, requiring wholly new transport systems such as pipelines. Moreover, most of these fields are found in extremely harsh environments where it is technically and financially difficult to operate.

Gazprom controls neither the capital nor the technology that will be needed. The state-controlled company is already deeply in debt and burdened by many expensive obligations, such as supplying Russia's population and friends with cheap gas. The company has to work with foreign partners.

So far Gazprom has been able to forestall crisis. Economic stagnation across the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe since 1990 dampened gas demand. Russia, which had a surplus at the time, sharply increased its gas exports and made contractual commitments that will remain in force for many years.

But following the long stagnation, Russia's internal gas consumption is rising again as the economy expands. And new Russian policies to promote development of the country's eastern regions will, in the next few years, require large new commitments to supply gas to that region (along with spending on railroads, airports and other infrastructure).

Even when the Russian economy was in the doldrums the country was notable as a large gas consumer because of its extremely inefficient energy system. Today Russia is the world's second-largest gas user, after the United States, although its economy is only one-twentieth the size of the U.S. economy.

Electricity in Russia is produced for the most part by gas, but the country's gas-fired electric generators work at 33 percent efficiency on average, compared with 50 to 55 percent in Europe. More than 90 percent of residential and industrial gas consumers don't have meters. Gas is even cheaper than coal -- Russia is the only large country where that is true -- so incentives to switch to an abundant fuel are weak.

In recent years Russia has boosted gas supplies by squeezing Turkmenistan to sell gas to Russia at a deep discount. But Turkmen gas production is poised to decline, and Turkmenistan's gas industry is barely functional because the country's political environment is scary for long-term investors. Other Central Asian suppliers, notably Kazakhstan, are unlikely to be able to bridge the gap.

Caught between growing internal consumption of gas, continued inefficiency and mounting external obligations, Russia's gas industry faces a looming crisis. Given the country's vast resources, it seems that many producers could fill the void. But a series of policy decisions created two roadblocks that Gazprom has been happy to reinforce. One is the lack of access to the Gazprom-controlled pipeline network, which explains why few companies even bother to look for gas: They know they can't get what they find to market. The other barrier to investment is the low internal prices, which make gas production uneconomic except for companies that can sell their products outside.

Gazprom needs cash -- much more cash -- for investment. At the same time, it needs a strong incentive for former Soviet republics to cut their own very inefficient consumption.

Analysts have ignored the risk that Russia's supplies could fall short because they focus on Russia's vast gas resources and the new Western investors who are -- albeit cautiously -- entering into joint ventures with Gazprom. But those resources and ventures are for the long term, and the looming crisis of supply is unfolding now.

The gas shortage is likely to become most acute over the next few years. If there is an unusually cold winter in 2008, the year of Russia's presidential election, then Gazprom will face a politically unpleasant choice: whether to cut off internal customers (voters) or the Western customers who are the firm's main source of hard cash.

The writer is a research fellow at the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development at Stanford University. She is co-author of "Axis of Oil" and of a forthcoming comprehensive review of Russia's gas pipelines.

All News button
1
Subscribe to Sustainable development