South Africa’s renewable energy procurement: a new frontier?

Despite a continuing electricity crisis from its coal-fired sources, in recent years South Africa has become one of the leading destinations for renewable energy investment. This is thanks to the launch of its renewable energy independent power producers’ programme for which an estimated $14 billion/R168 billion has been committed thus far and approximately 4 GW of utility-scale renewable energy capacity approved. The programme is unique in that it in order for projects to qualify, developers must commit to undertake requirements for community ownership and economic development benefits in a country with gross socio-economic inequality. As the industry facilitated by RE IPPPP continues to develop, however, concerns have arisen including: the extent to which financial returns will leave or benefit the country; that the ownership of the industry is rapidly becoming the domain of large international utilities; and emerging tensions between ‘bankability’ required by banks and investors and the economic benefits and community ownership criteria

Benchmarking Utility Clean Energy Deployment: 2016

Benchmarking Utility Clean Energy Deployment: 2016 provides a window into how the global transition toward clean energy is playing out in the U.S. electric power sector. Specifically, it reveals the extent to which 30 of the largest U.S. investor-owned electric utility holding companies are increasingly deploying clean energy resources to meet customer needs.Benchmarking these companies provides an opportunity for transparent reporting and analysis of important industry trends. It fills a knowledge gap by offering utilities, regulators, investors, policymakers and other stakeholders consistent and comparable information on which to base their decisions. And it provides perspective on which utilities are best positioned in a shifting policy landscape, including likely implementation of the U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan aimed at reducing carbon pollution from power plants

Review of existing electricity quality label systems in the European Union

Green electricity quality labels have been utilised in the European Union since 1990. Of the seventeen European countries analysed here1, at the time of writing nine had no countryspecific quality label, although all electricity tariffs within Europe were able to apply for accreditation under the EUGENE labelling scheme. Germany had several quality labels, each with slightly different criteria. All of the eighteen labels identified in the report applied to electricity from renewable sources. Of these, seven also allowed co-generation to be a part of the fuel mix and one had a requirement for eligible companies to fulfil some demand side management activities. No existing labelling scheme set an overall requirement for CO2 emissions, although some did set emissions limits for co-generation components. Seven labels required some contribution from new renewable energy plant2. Only three of the labels did not allow publicly funded plant to contribute to a labelled green tariff. A review of labels clearly indicates that: · there are several schemes with varying levels of “greenness”, operating in some countries, which may be confusing for customers; · very few labels are clearly requiring some additionality for the products. It is therefore recommended that the European Union and member states continue to use other support mechanisms to increase the generation of electricity from renewable sources

Accelerating U.S. Clean Energy Deployment: Investor Policy Priorities

International investment to mitigate climate change is far below levels needed to reach the two-degree target. The International Energy Agency estimates that an average of an additional $1 trillion in incremental financing for clean energy is needed to meet the temperature target. In September 2014, over 350 investors representing$24 trillion in assets issued the Global Investor Statement on Climate Change, calling on governments to create an ambitious global agreement that includes a meaningful price on carbon -- the "Clean Trillion."This paper connects the Clean Trillion goal to the current United States climate and clean energy policy framework, which is a mixture of federal, state, and local initiatives. The paper outlines the 2015 U.S. policy priorities of the Policy Working Group of the Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR), a network of more than 110 institutional investors primarily based in the U.S., focused on investment risks and opportunities associated with climate change

Going for zero: state decarbonisation strategies for prosperity in a zero-emission world

This paper explains why states should have a decarbonisation strategy and explores some key policy elements. Abstract Across the world, governments at all levels are implementing policies to reduce carbon emissions, address local air pollution, improve energy productivity, grow new industries and address energy security concerns. While these initiatives are as yet insufficient to avoid dangerous climate change or achieve the internationally agreed goal of avoiding 2°C warming above pre-industrial levels, the trend is clear. What is also clear is the ultimate destination or strategic objective that these policies need to have: the progressive phase-out of emissions to reach net zero levels, or ‘decarbonisation’. The OECD, World Bank and latest IPCC report have warned that avoiding irreversible and severe climate change impacts will require the global economy to be decarbonised before the end of the century. This requires energy systems, particularly electricity, to decarbonise well before then. Private sector actors are also moving forward. Leading multinational business groups and corporate leaders have called for action to achieve net zero global emissions by 2050. The financial sector is increasingly aware of the risks of ‘stranded assets’ resulting from both global decarbonisation efforts and the physical impacts of climate change. In Australia recent political and policy turmoil saw state governments retreat from many past climate policy initiatives. However some governments are now reconsidering their position and the risks posed to their economies and communities should they be left behind by this global trend toward decarbonisation. This paper explains why states should have a decarbonisation strategy and explores these key policy elements: Setting binding emission limits on major emitting facilities Incorporating carbon considerations into policy and planning processes Using procurement and management policies to help build markets for lower emission goods and services Continuing to develop and link energy efficiency policy frameworks Providing assistance: funding, technical, regulatory, trainin

WoodCircus, Underpinning the vital role of the forest-based sector in the Circular Bioeconomy. D2.2 Resource Efficiency, Side Streams and Value Chain Analysis – WP2 Final Report

202

Overcoming barriers to electrical energy storage: Comparing California and Europe

Multiple market drivers suggest that electrical energy storage (EES) systems are going to be essential for future power systems within the next decade. However, the deployment of the technology is proceeding at very different rates around the world. Whereas the sector is progressing quickly in California, it is not gaining much traction, so far, in Europe. This research aims to clarify why the prospects for energy storage in Europe are not as good as they are in California. The market and regulatory framework in California and Europe are analysed critically, and changes to overcome the main barriers are recommended. The research shows that the main barriers are: inadequate definition and classification of EES in legislation; lack of markets for some ancillary services; inadequate market design that benefits traditional technologies; and the lack of need for EES in some jurisdictions. The prospects are better in California because regulation is more advanced and favourable for the technology, and regulators are collaborating with developers and utilities to analyse barriers and solutions for the technology. In Europe, there is a need to clarify the definition of EES, create new markets for ancillary services, design technology-neutral market rules and study more deeply the necessity of EES