ENERGY POLICY: WHAT IS COHERENCE?

1
ENERGY POLICYWHAT IS COHERENCE?

• Khalil Elahee, MA(Cantab), PhD
• Faculty of Engineering,
• University of Mauritius

2
Content

• Energy E5 dimensions
• Indicators what are these?
• Selection, calculation and presentation of
  indicators
• Key observations
• Outline Energy Policy an analysis
• Conclusion

3
Energy

• Engineering
• Economic
• Environmental
• Ethical
• 5Es
• of
• Sustainable
• Energy
• Management

4
Indicators

• Indicators are derived from data and are the most
  basic tools for analyzing changes

• Data
• Indicators
• Index
• Information

5
Selecting Energy Indicators

• Holistic Set of Indicators
• Relevance
• Understandability
• Reliability
• Accessibility of data

6
Selected Indicators

• Environmental
• Indicator 1 GHG emission from energy use per
  capita
• Indicator 2 Most significant pollutant from
  energy use (SO2) per capita
• Ethical
• Indicator 3 Share of household income on energy
• Indicator 4 Investment in clean energy/ total
  investment

• Economic
• Indicator 5 Energy resilience (net import of
  energy/ total energy requirement)
• Indicator 6 Burden on energy investment /GDP
• Engineering
• Indicator 7 Energy use per GDP
• Indicator 8 Share of renewable energy per total
  energy requirement

7
Calculation of Indicators

• Indicator ( I year) ( X Y ) / Z
• where
• X Observed value
• Y Target value
• Z Difference between
• a reference value and Y

8
Comparing 1990, 2000 and 2004
I1990 I1995 I2004
Indicator 1 -0.19 0.034 0.301
Indicator 2 0.32 0.42 1.116
Indicator 3 0.125 0.13 0.165
Indicator 4 0.964 0.925 0.9
Indicator 5 0.594 0.67 0.78
Indicator 6 0.462 0.311 0.554
Indicator 7 1.157 0.842 0.783
Indicator 8 0.625 0.718 0.845
9
(No Transcript)
10
Key observations

• Except for Energy Intensity ( Indicator 7), there
  has been no significant improvement for any of
  the Indicators since 1990.
• The worst cases are than of GHG emissions per
  capita ( Indicator 1) and emission of most
  significant pollutant (SO2) per capita (Indicator
  2)
• A shrinking of the STAR is a good sign of
  sustainable use of energy. This happened between
  1990 and 1995 ( dwindling use of coal cf.
  hydropower) , but thereafter the situation grew
  worse.
• The situation in 2006 was indeed worse because of
  increasing use of fossil fuel ( increase in coal
  import by 26 ) and of decreasing use of local
  energy resources by 6 ( in 2005 cf. 2004)

11
Conclusions

• Making the STAR shrink is our objective
• Reduce CO2 and SO2 emissions
• Affordable energy for all
• Investment in renewables
• Energy efficiency improvement
• Lets face the facts the technology exists,
  external factors are known and the problem is
  INTERNAL , ie politico-economic and
  administrative!
• OR ELSE OUR STAR WILL BURST!

12
Outline document an analysis
13
Ethical Dimension

• Vision energy independencequoting APJ Abdul
  Kalam (p16)
• Self-sufficiency is already evoked in 1997 NLPTS
  Vision 2020 paper. Moreover, the CEB Corporate
  Plan 2003-13 points in same the direction.
• Long-term vision is not defined beyond 2025.
• The notion of interdependence or regional
  potential of codevelopment is not included.
• None of the 5 key objectives of the Outline
  refers directly to sustainable development,
  renewable or environment.

14

• 70 self-sufficiency in 50 years, limit
  vulnerability to imported fossil fuel (p15-16)
• No clear target set beyond 2025.
• Cf. Réunion where by 2025, 90 self-sufficiency
  in electricity generation is expected at the cost
  of EUR 1 billion ( PRERURE)
• In Mauritius, against an investment of EUR 2
  billion in 25 years in electricity generation, no
  target is set. However, 75 and 57 of the latter
  will be dependent on fossil fuel in 2013 and in
  2025 respectively (p17)

15

• FOCUS. financial sustainability of CEB
  (Foreword and 22 out of 30 pages). Even the
  Utility Regulator Act(2004) to be proclaimed by
  end 2008 makes the sustainability and viability
  of the utility services a top priority ( III-4)
• The Outline document is largely focused on the
  CEB.
• Energy-transport, energy-tourism and
  energy-development linkages are not addressed.
• What is CEB is no more the sole provider as
  possible under the URA(2004)?
• The focus customers interests and universal
  access to energy is missing.

16

• LOCAL PARTICIPATION COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT. An
  energy efficiency campaign was launched in
  2005(p13). Democratization of the economy is
  evoked (p1). Participation of the sugar industry
  is required in the context of the MAAS(p7).
• Lack of feedback and reporting icw the energy
  efficiency campaign. The strategy of public
  involvement is questionable. The Energy
  Efficiency Act due by the end of 2008 must be
  preceded by sensitization.
• Decentralization of energy systems is vaguely
  referred to (p19).
• BOO thru unsollicited bids is preferred to PPP
  where public interest would have been safeguarded
  both in terms of selling price of electricity and
  of environment protection.
• Instead of confidence-building and searching for
  win-win situation with the sugar sector in dire
  need of re-engineering into a new cane industry,
  the CEB is pitted against the latter.
  Conflict-prone references such as apportionment
  of investment, subsidy from CEB or
  bagasse-coal becomes coal-only ( p21-24)
  reveal a problem-oriented agenda.

17

• GLOBAL CONCERN. Reference to Stern, to the new US
  approach and to the vulnerability of SIDS. ( p1,
  p7)
• Yet coal is included not as an alternative to
  bagasse during intercrop but as the main part of
  the energy mix. See details below.

18

• TRANSPARENCY. Need for the Regulator to have
  unfettered access to all information. (p20)
• This refers to future practice.
• In the meantime, decisions need to be taken not
  only in total financial transparency but also in
  a coherent manner ( OECD and IAEA norms on
  coherence and sustainable energy indicators)
• The decision to include the Waste-to-Energy
  project and the coal-project as part of the
  short-term energy plan was taken in spite of
  insufficient data provided by the promoters (
  p6 of CEB document annexed to Outline document).
  This was largely at the expense of a proposal
  with excellent references that would have
  optimized the use of bagasse ( p8 of the latter
  document). Not to mention the wind proposal which
  is now null-and-void.

19
ENERGY-ENGINEERING DIMENSIONS

• WIND. Not in CEB submitted as annex to the
  Outline document, yet specific project fully
  included in Outline ( p11 and p28) published in
  April 2007.
• Now revealed that since Dec 2006, specific
  proposal is null and void. Choice of strategic
  partner, rather than owner thru unsolicited bid,
  should be based on transparency and credibility.
• Potential of Bigara should be exploited
  immediately ( confirmed since Batelle Report,
  1986)

20

• WASTE-TO-ENERGY.Provision made specifically for
  several incineration projects (4.7 in 2013 and
  6 in 2025) (p12,p17)
• Linkage with Integrated Waste Management (3Rs)
  and other waste-to-energy options ( methane from
  landfill and biogas) is not considered.
• ETHANOL. E10 will be introduced not before 2010,
  report on tests expected by mid 2008 (p13)
• In National Energy Conference (1980), results
  already reported, literature abounds and
  Brazilian experience is available. Why so much
  delay?

21

• COAL. Dedicated coal power plants are compared
  with bagasse-coal power plants and stated to be
  20 more efficient (p5). To limit CO2
  emissions, Mauritius should resort to clean coal
  technology (p21). Coal is replacing oil in the
  medium term(p21)
• Comparing like with unlike, not defining the
  efficiency considered, neglecting the potential
  of Research, Development and Innovation and
  restricting the meaning of clean coal technology
  to pulverized coal or low sulphur emissions.
• The unbelievable conclusion is that coal-only is
  better than for the environment than
  bagasse-coal.
• Coal in fact does not replace oil except in the
  short term. From 2007 to 2013, the coal use
  decreases while the oil use is constant. At
  20...and it remains there!

22

• BAGASSE. More bagasse is used in absolute terms
  (p5). Cane biomass is not yet fully tapped.(p8)
• In fact the energy from bagasse in absolute terms
  is DECREASING today!
• The MAAS plans for 600 GWh from bagasse in 2015.
  However, in 2013, 15 of 3092 GWh is expected
  from bagasse according to the Outline, that is
  464 GWh.
• Scope for cane biomass use is 10 times more with
  energy canes, advanced technology and use of tops
  and leaves. Research, Development and Innovation
  should be a priority ( as for ocean energy)

23
ECONOMIC-ENVIRONMENTAL DIMENSIONS

• DEMAND-SUPPLY.2 million tourists expected in
  2015 (p1). 5 electricity demand growth
  annually. Demand problem is due to peak ( 300 MW
  today cf. 500 MW in 2013)
• The requirement of 2 million tourists should be
  assessed systematically. Green tourism?
• It is essential to identify WHO DRIVES the demand
  and WHO PAYS for it.
• Peak/demand-side management should be an
  immediate priority

24

• PRICING POLICY. Incentives limited to
  environment e.g carbon credits (p7). subsidies
  as carbon credit only. (p23,24 and 28)
• Environmental costs should be fully integrated.
  Ethanol e.g will not penetrate the market without
  cross-subsidization. Is LPG not currently
  subsidized?
• Brazil put in USD 30 billion in 20 years to
  promote ethanol and got back USD 50 billion
  saving on oil import. Today the benefits
• The issue of environmental costs related to fuels
  e.g coal and products e.g big cars should be
  fully addressed.
• Revenue due to environmental costs imposition may
  be directed to Research, Development and
  Innovation in sustainable energy, climate change
  mitigation and adaptation.

25
CONCLUSION

• Recommendation for URGENT CONSENSUAL ACTION
  though a Sustainable Energy Act instead of
  experts developing policy based on flawed
  Outline document
• Coherent, holistic medium-long term policy ( up
  to 2050) to promote renewables, energy efficiency
  as well as a regional energy industry
• Energy Management Office for facilitating
  implementation/coordination IMMEDIATELY.
• Finance programmes and cross-subsidization thru
  an Environment/Energy Tax on all
  non-sustainable energy products, from fuel to
  lamps (reducing VAT if needed)

26
Thanking you