Search Climate Insights Directory

The July 2012 issue of Investment Treaty News Quarterly explores the tension between investor protections and the regulatory autonomy of states. Key discussions include the use of deferential standards of review to enhance the legitimacy of investor-state arbitration and the risks associated with unilateral offers to arbitrate in national investment codes. The document also analyzes how international investment agreements can clash with the provision of public services and the increasing trend of investors challenging renewable energy feed-in tariffs (FiTs) and domestic content requirements. Additionally, it reviews the European Commission's draft text for investor-state dispute settlement in EU agreements and provides summaries of recent arbitral awards involving countries such as Slovakia, Cuba, Paraguay, Ecuador, and Turkey.

Tanzania has implemented the Small Power Projects (SPP) programme to scale up decentralized renewable energy and reduce dependence on drought-prone hydropower and expensive fossil fuels. The programme uses an avoided-cost-based feed-in tariff (FIT) to attract private investment without increasing costs for the national utility, TANESCO. While five plants (28.3 MW) are operational and ten more are planned, growth is hindered by low tariffs, high financing costs, and technical skepticism. The brief highlights the importance of South-South exchanges with Thailand and Sri Lanka in developing the regulatory framework and suggests that transitioning to technology-based tariffs, supported by international climate finance, is necessary for broader deployment of solar and wind energy.

The report investigates the feasibility of producing biomethane from organic waste and energy crops in Harju County, Estonia. It compares two primary scenarios for the Hinnu pig farm: using biogas for combined heat and power (CHP) or upgrading it to biomethane for transport fuel. The analysis concludes that while CHP may offer higher immediate business profitability due to feed-in tariffs, upgrading to biomethane provides greater overall social and environmental benefits, particularly when considering the EU Emissions Trading System.

The document assesses the impact of large-scale power projects on the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), noting that these projects are expected to generate nearly 70% of total CERs between 2013 and 2020. It argues that additionality for these projects is difficult to demonstrate, potentially leading to a global increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The authors propose phasing out these projects to stabilize the carbon market and shifting support toward national policies like feed-in tariffs and carbon taxes.

The report assesses the innovation systems of solar PV and CCS, finding that while solar PV is rapidly declining in cost and expanding globally, CCS remains stuck in a 'valley of death' requiring large-scale demonstration. It contrasts the European preference for 'market pull' policies (like feed-in tariffs) with the US emphasis on 'technology push' (R&D funding), arguing that a balanced approach is necessary to meet global climate goals.

The document examines how different financial instruments and institutions define and calculate 'leverage'—the ability of public funds to catalyze additional investment. It finds that leverage is often conflated with co-financing and varies wildly by instrument, making cross-comparison nearly impossible. The authors propose a new framework based on counterfactuals, risk mitigation, and the avoidance of double counting to improve the rigor of climate finance reporting.

The document analyzes China's rapid expansion in wind power, highlighting the role of the 2006 Renewable Energy Law, the transition from concession bidding to feed-in tariffs, and the growth of domestic manufacturing.

The report analyzes six case studies—onshore wind in the U.S. and Spain, solar PV in the U.S. and Italy, a solar power tower in the U.S., and offshore wind in Denmark—to determine how policy impacts the cost of finance. It identifies seven policy impact pathways, finding that the duration of revenue support and revenue certainty are the most critical factors in reducing financing costs. The analysis shows that while most projects' costs and returns align with benchmarks, the Italian PV case experienced inflated costs and returns due to a rush to qualify for a Feed-in-Premium. The report concludes that policies reducing risk and providing revenue certainty are essential for attracting institutional investors and scaling innovative technologies.

The document investigates whether public finance-facilitating tools can act as a 'game-changer' for low-carbon investment in developing countries. It identifies that while these tools can address various risks and increase liquidity, they are not a substitute for ambitious climate policies and direct payment mechanisms. Key challenges include a lack of 'deal flow' in less advanced economies, the risk of crowding out private capital, and the inherent risk-aversion of public finance institutions that must maintain high credit ratings.

This working paper by the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) establishes a framework for diagnosing policy effectiveness by analyzing the link between policy, finance, and outcomes. It argues that policies impact the investment environment by altering the allocation of costs, revenues, and risks, which subsequently affects the types of investors attracted to projects. The paper details the specific requirements and risk tolerances of different investor classes—including debt, equity, mezzanine, and venture capital—and explains how these dynamics shift across the development, construction, and operation stages of a project. CPI intends to use this framework for future case studies to test hypotheses on financial structures and contractual risk allocation.

The document introduces a project by the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) to analyze the impact of government policy on the development and cost reduction of solar photovoltaic (PV) technology. It identifies cost as the primary obstacle to PV's technical potential and proposes a four-step evaluation framework—linking objectives, activities, drivers, and policies—to assess policy effectiveness across the PV value chain. The briefing highlights key policy questions regarding the use of targeted versus broad-based tools, the interaction between local and national policies, and the role of capital markets in financing deployment.

The report analyzes the PV sectors in Germany and China, finding that while deployment support has successfully driven installations and cost reductions, investment support is insufficiently linked to innovation, and direct R&D funding remains low relative to deployment subsidies. It argues that PV costs must be reduced by another 50% to achieve large-scale competitiveness, requiring a comprehensive value-chain approach and international policy coordination to maintain momentum as German support declines.

The executive summary evaluates the EU ETS's role in driving low-carbon investment, finding that while it provides a useful framework, its impact is hindered by the Clean Development Mechanism, inadequate financial reporting standards, and short investment horizons for energy efficiency.

The study finds that climate policy elements, including the EU ETS and long-term targets, are generally rated as less relevant to corporate investment decisions in the power sector than market factors and technology-specific regulations like feed-in tariffs. For technology providers, long-term targets are significantly more relevant than the EU ETS for both RD&D and sales. Power generators show a high correlation between the perceived relevance of the EU ETS and long-term targets. The research also indicates that technology providers' reliance on technology-specific policies is strongly linked to their product portfolios, while power generators' relevance ratings are less dependent on their technology portfolios. Higher long-term CO2 price expectations and greater certainty about those prices correlate with a higher perceived relevance of the EU ETS for new plant investments.

The report evaluates the EU ETS's impact on corporate investment behavior, finding that while it successfully reduced investment in carbon-intensive assets, its ability to trigger a shift toward low-carbon strategies is hindered by insufficient stringency and the use of free allowances. It highlights that the current cap reduction trajectory is insufficient to meet the EU's 80-95% emission reduction goal by 2050 and argues that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) creates uncertainty and reduces effective emission targets. The authors recommend tightening the ETS cap, phasing out offsets, reforming IFRS accounting practices to reflect the true value of allowances, and combining carbon pricing with technology-specific support schemes to create a more enabling environment for low-carbon projects.

The study finds that climate policy elements, including the EU ETS and long-term targets, are generally less influential in corporate investment decisions than market prices and technology-specific regulations like feed-in tariffs. While technology providers view long-term targets as significantly more relevant than the EU ETS for RD&D and sales, power generators see the EU ETS as slightly more relevant for new plant adoption. The research emphasizes that a coordinated policy mix of stringent, predictable instruments and ambitious long-term targets is necessary to drive low-carbon innovation.

The document argues that technological innovation, particularly in the electricity sector, is essential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but is currently hindered by high risks and long investment cycles. It highlights that while solar PV has seen rapid growth driven by European feed-in tariffs and US tax incentives, carbon capture and storage (CCS) remains stalled in the 'valley of death' due to insufficient funding and political commitment for large-scale demonstration. The authors emphasize the need for a combination of 'push' (R&D) and 'pull' (market creation) mechanisms to ensure sustainable technological scaling and suggest that market formation must expand beyond Europe to ensure global stability for these industries.

The document critiques carbon trading as an unreliable mechanism that shifts the burden of mitigation to developing countries and benefits the Northern financial industry. It proposes a comprehensive package of alternatives: for mitigation, it suggests global feed-in tariffs for renewables, energy efficiency standards, sustainable small-scale agriculture, and the protection of Indigenous forest rights. For climate finance, it identifies a potential US$420 billion per year in new funding through a global Financial Transaction Tax, cracking down on tax evasion, redirecting fossil-fuel producer subsidies, issuing new Special Drawing Rights, and implementing carbon and energy taxes.

The report critiques carbon trading as a 'risky, irresponsible and dangerous' tool that diverts attention from viable solutions. It proposes a comprehensive package of alternatives: investing US$100 billion annually in renewable energy feed-in tariffs, transitioning to small-scale sustainable agriculture, protecting forests by addressing drivers like agrofuels, and implementing international industrial standards for the 'best available technologies'. For climate finance, it suggests a combination of a global financial transaction tax, combating tax evasion, redirecting fossil fuel subsidies, issuing Special Drawing Rights, and implementing carbon and energy taxes, which could collectively provide at least US$420 billion annually for developing nations.

The report critiques carbon trading as a high-risk distraction that allows developed nations to avoid domestic emissions reductions and undermines the principle of common but differentiated responsibility. It proposes a comprehensive package of alternatives, including a global feed-in tariff for renewable energy, a transition to small-scale sustainable agriculture, and the implementation of common industrial standards for best available technology. To fund these transitions and support developing countries, the report suggests generating at least US$420 billion per year through a global financial transaction tax, cracking down on tax evasion, redirecting fossil-fuel producer subsidies, issuing new Special Drawing Rights, and implementing carbon and energy taxes.