The boTTom line
When pondering long-term investments in power systems, choices about the mix of renewables and their geographic distribution must take into account seasonal, multiyear, and multidecade variability, information derivable from data generated by a suite of climate models that are available at almost no cost. To date, policy makers, planners, and investors in renewable-energy fields have generally not made extensive use of such data. Climate modelers and power system planners should work together so that the outputs and scenarios from climate models can be interpreted carefully and used in power system planning.
integrating Climate model Data into Power System Planning
Why is this issue important?
Climate model outputs can enhance our understanding of the long-term variability of renewable resources, an essential component of power system planning
Significant multiyear and multidecade variations in intermittent renewable resources hold major implications for power system investments. Hydropower planners in New Zealand, Brazil, Norway, and elsewhere know this from long experience. They have been using extensive hydrology data for many years to represent hydro-logical risks in their planning (see for instance, Meridian Energy 2011). The variability is even more pronounced for solar and wind (Hoste, Dvorak, and Jacobson 2010). Often, however, policy-driven invest-ments barely consider such risks. Although the potential effects of long-term variability were flagged a decade ago (see, for example, IEA 2005), efforts are still largely focused on fine-tuning short-term wind and solar forecasting systems.
Climate model data are particularly suited for the assessment of longer-term variability. A good grasp of seasonal, multiyear, and multidecade trends is essential in assessing the economic merits of investments in renewable resources and the extent to which such resources can complement one other or may need to be backed up by further investments in nonrenewable sources. For instance, plan-ners of hydro-dominated systems have learned to use risk-based criteria such as so-called 1-in-50-year drought coverage to deal with the risk posed by extremely dry years.
That climate models can provide scenarios over several decades makes them equally applicable to wind and solar planning. For example, a significant deterioration in the quality of wind resources
has already been detected in some parts of the world. The average wind speed in China deteriorated by 25 percent between 1969 and 2000, according to Xu and others (2006). There has been a 40 percent reduction in surface wind speed in India over the past four decades (Padmakumari, Jaswal, and Goswami 2013).
Good-quality data generated by climate models—both historical and projected over decades—are available for all countries at little or no cost. Such data can and should form part of power system planning, complementing more detailed, but expensive, renewable energy resource mapping and actual observations and measure-ments of wind, solar, and hydro power. To date, however, policy makers, planners, and investors in renewable-energy fields have generally not used climate model data, favoring other forms of data and analytics, including site-specific measurements and renewable resource maps.
The universe of such data includes outputs from a range of climate-analysis models such as global circulation models (GCM), which can run long-term climate scenarios and generate simulated historical data to complement or supplant missing or low-quality original data. The data from most such models—including the experimental CMIP5 (Coupled Model Inter-Comparison Project version 5, http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/) used in the Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Meehl and Stocker 2007)—are available for free.
That these datasets have not yet been put to use in power system planning is surprising given their potential value and their applications in related areas. Data from climate modeling exercises have made important contributions to infrastructure planning since the 1990s—most notably, in the area of urban planning (Carmin, Nadkarni, and Rhie 2012; Füssel 2007), where the increased fre-quency of natural hazards, temperature extremes, changes in rainfall
Debabrata Chattopadhyay is a senior energy specialist in the World Bank’s Energy and
Extractives Global Practice.
Rhonda L. Jordan is an energy specialist in the same practice.
A k n o w l e d g e n o t e s e r i e s f o r t h e e n e r g y p r A c t i c e
2015/43
A k n o w l e d g e n o t e s e r i e s f o r t h e e n e r g y & e x t r A c t i v e s g l o b A l p r A c t i c e
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
2 I n T e g r a T I n g C l I m a T e m o d e l d a T a I n T o P o W e r S y S T e m P l a n n I n g
“That climate model
datasets have not yet been
put to use in power system
planning is surprising given
their potential value and
their applications in related
areas.”
patterns, and the rise in sea levels are routinely analyzed through down-scaled climate models despite data limitations. In urban planning, climate model data are usefully applied even in relatively coarse form—that is, at resolutions of 50 km x 50 km. Low spatial resolution implies examination of average climate conditions (such as temperature, wind speed, solar radiation, and precipitation) over a significant area (of 2,500 km2 in this case), with gaps in accuracy for specific locations within that area.
What is the key challenge?
Attention has focused on renewable resource maps, to the neglect of longer-term data generated by climate models
Despite the clear utility of understanding the variability of renewable resources over the longer term, the models and data that can deliver that understanding remain underexploited in power system planning and operation (IRENA 2013). Studies from the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and other research institutions integrate some form of meteorological models, but their datasets are not long and rich enough to plot and predict the impact of climate variability over a term that is long enough to be optimally useful for planning investments in energy assets. For example, the NREL’s 2010 study on integrating wind and solar energy into the power mix in the western United States (GE Energy 2010) used high-resolution data from a numerical weather prediction model called 3TIER data but over a period of just three years (2004–06).1
Climate modeling data can be useful to power system planners not only because the climate exerts direct effects on demand for power (for example, the rising frequency of high-temperature days and other extreme weather events affect peak demand and electric-ity consumption generally), but also because such data can provide rich information on the long-term availability of wind and hydro resources, information that is crucial for planning.
The effect of climate change on demand, as evidenced by climate modeling data, and the implications of change for generation
1 The study’s inattention to variability beyond an annual time horizon has been typical, but wind and solar forecasting tools using real-time data and sophisticated analytical models such as 3TIER (or the Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s ACCESS model, http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/charts/about/about_access.shtml) are in increasingly wide use.
and fuel choices, have been studied (see, for example, Mansur, Mendelsohn, and Morrison 2007). The same cannot be said about supply-side analysis of generation and resource availability. Yet the variability of wind, solar, and hydro resources in different times-cales—over the years, seasonal, daily—matters a great deal for power systems. Climate data help us understand all three types of variability, particularly the first two.
Renewable resource maps have already proved their use in understanding variability, though not for the long time horizons on which climate models operate. The Renewable Resource Data Center at the NREL (http://www.nrel.gov/rredc/) and the Global Atlas of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA, http://globalatlas.irena.org/) are two well-known repositories of such maps and data, the production and generation of which are co-funded by the Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP), a global, multido-nor technical assistance trust fund administered by the World Bank and cosponsored by 13 official bilateral donors (http://www.esmap.org/RE_Mapping). Regional units of the World Bank have undertaken comprehensive resource mapping and geospatial planning under ESMAP-funded projects. Other major data sources include the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of Wind Energy at the Technical University of Denmark, the German Aerospace Center (DLR), and Spain’s National Renewable Energy Center (CENER).
Donor agencies, including the World Bank, have been actively promoting the compilation of such maps in developing nations. Combined with direct measurements and simulated data, the maps have been useful in shaping renewable-energy investments and in analyzing their impacts on power system operations.
However, each resource-mapping exercise is expensive, and maps, like actual observations, are limited because they are either static or do not cover enough time to capture variability over periods of years. Integrating renewable-energy data into power system plan-ning requires that all aspects of variability be taken into consideration. To ensure reliable supplies of power, planning must take into account the availability or unavailability of a given resource over a given period of time so that back-up generation capacity or other alternatives (such as storage and demand-side responses) can be put in place.
3 I n T e g r a T I n g C l I m a T e m o d e l d a T a I n T o P o W e r S y S T e m P l a n n I n g
“Integrating renewable-
energy data into power
system planning requires
that all aspects of variability
be taken into consideration.
To ensure reliable supplies
of power, planning must
take into account the
availability or unavailability
of a given resource
over a given period of
time so that back-up
generation capacity or
other alternatives (such as
storage and demand-side
responses) can be put in
place.”
What’s the solution?
Accurate power system planning requires an integrated solution
Even though the GCMs do not yet meet all of the needs of long-term power system planning, they can already enhance planning—and at a very low cost (box 1). Planners can afford to err to some extent on resolution with respect to site-specific resources (and can compen-sate for the GCMs’ low resolution through other means, as discussed), but they cannot afford to ignore the longer-term variability that GCMs track and reveal. A reassessment by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory of wind energy potential in China and India increased ear-lier estimates by a massive amount. The 2012 study for India (Phadke, Bharvirkar, and Khangura 2012) raised the original estimate of 48 GW that had been prepared by the Indian government to more than 2,000 GW (a 42-fold increase!) based on a limited set of actual observations. But the Berkeley analysis did not consider the interannual variability of wind data—a serious deficiency because a significant part of the proposed development would take place in the southern states of India (including Tamil Nadu and Karnataka) that exhibit significant seasonal and interannual variability, as discussed further on.
Debate over the degree of accuracy needed to capture the variability of wind and solar resources helps explain why the long term has received relatively little attention. IRENA’s Global Atlas project proposal, for example, noted that the wind energy resource was underestimated because “a large part of the wind resource [is] not being captured in the analysis” for lack of data on small-scale variabil-ity of wind (IRENA 2011). With averaging, it is easy to miss promising sites. As one moves from the country and regional level to sites within a 10 km x 10 km area, the potential for error grows and can reach an unacceptable degree. There is obviously a trade-off between creating resource maps at high granularity and doing it over many years.
Other challenges will need to be overcome on the climate modeling front. Because the GCMs are not initialized with actual observations—which are important for predicting the timing of specific events, especially in the short term—they are not ideally suited to forecast the precise timing of a major phenomenon, such as an El Nino event. Improving the ability of GCMs to produce better forecasts is an area of active research.
To illustrate the potential application of GCM data, we draw from a recent research paper that uses power system planning results for India based on data from a 21-year reanalysis (1980–2000) of the interannual variability of solar and wind resources. Chattopadhyay (2014) provides insights into the nature of variability over time as well as across states and subregions. Figure 1 shows geographical and seasonal variability in solar irradiance for 1980. Seasonal variation is significant in all states, especially during the transition from winter (December–January) to the pre-monsoon period (April–May). However, as the figure makes clear, the geographic spread is also very significant. This geographic and temporal variability poses a problem, given that power generation capacity is often inadequate to meet peak demand even when all resources are available.
Box 1. data from the following gCms are freely available
• ECHAM5 (Germany, Roeckner and others 2003)
•GFDL’s CM2 Global Coupled Climate Models (United States, Delworth and others 2007)
•Hadley Centre Global Environment Model Version 1 (United Kingdom, Hadley Center 2006)
•CSIRO Mk 3.5 (Australia, Gordon and others 2002)
• K-1 Coupled GCM (MIROC) (Japan, Hasumi and Emori 2004).
Applicable datasets are available for several decades and forecast periods at a granularity of 4–6 hour blocks within each day and at resolutions of up to 10 km x 10 km. They are generally adequate for analyses at the country and regional levels but not for site-specific wind and solar analysis. With respect to long-term power system planning, which typically extends over 10–50 years, a relatively coarse dataset may be sufficient to augment short-term data of finer resolution. Such analysis is typically used to provide broad guidance on factors such as fuel mix, prices, and volume of investment, rather than for planning site-specific projects.
The authors of this note are compiling a sample set of climate model data of potential use in power system planning. Using the World Bank’s Spatial Agent mobile application (https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/spatial-agent/id890565166?mt=8) they aim to ensure that this data will be readily available.
4 I n T e g r a T I n g C l I m a T e m o d e l d a T a I n T o P o W e r S y S T e m P l a n n I n g
“With respect to long-term
power system planning,
which typically extends
over 10–50 years, a
relatively coarse dataset
may be sufficient to
augment short-term data
of finer resolution. Such
analysis is typically used
to provide broad guidance
on factors such as fuel
mix, prices, and volume
of investment, rather than
for planning site-specific
projects.”
Figure 2 shows wind-power density (Watts/sq.m.) for wind-rich Tamil Nadu in southern India from 1980 to 2000. Electricity demand in the state is at its highest in April–June, just before the monsoon arrives, a time when the availability of hydropower is also typically low. To be noted in the figure are how much wind density varies across the seasons and over the years for the same season. Although there is a broad trend of high wind availability around mid-year, the variability across 21 years of data is significant.
Tamil Nadu has no more than 7 GW of installed wind capacity and, since 2000, has made almost no investment in generating capacity to meet base load since 2000. The state ended 2012–13 with a 29.6 percent peak deficit (CEA 2013a; Chattopadhyay and Chattopadhyay 2012), recalling the days of rampant load shedding in the 1960s and 1970s. So the state’s need is great, and its potential for wind energy may be equally great. Phadke, Bharvirkar, and Khangura (2012) found up to 65 GW of economic wind potential in the state
but, as noted, did not consider longer-term variability. Addressing that issue may be the key to attracting investments that could exploit the state’s wind potential and solve its power problems. And the necessary data are freely available!
The same reasoning applies to the solar potential of states such as Gujarat (Chattopadhyay and Chattopadhyay 2012; CEA 2013b).
Renewable resources may complement one other, or they may overlap to a significant degree, creating seasonal cycles of over- and undersupply, as has happened in India. Climate model data can help planners understand such relationships and assemble a more balanced set of resources, as well as necessary back-up measures. A proper exploration of climate data and its integration into power system planning would lead to more informed policies with regard to renewable resources, and, in conjunction with resource maps and actual observations, a more judicious selection of renewable projects.
Figure 1. geographical and seasonal variation of solar irradiance for key Indian states in 1980
Source: Chattopadhyay (2014).
Andhra Pradesh
Gujarat
Karnataka
Orissa
Punjab
Haryana
Tamil Nadu
Uttar Pradesh
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Delhi
Rajasthan So
lar
irra
dia
nce
(W
atts
/sq
m)
High end: Rajasthan, Gujarat
Low end: Tamil Nadu, Orissa
Jan. Nov.Oct.Sept.Aug.Jul.Jun.May.Apr.Mar.Feb. Dec.
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
5 I n T e g r a T I n g C l I m a T e m o d e l d a T a I n T o P o W e r S y S T e m P l a n n I n g
“Researchers found up to
65 GW of economic wind
potential in Tamil Nadu but
did not consider longer-
term variability. Addressing
that issue may be the key
to attracting investments
that could exploit the
state’s wind potential and
solve its power problems.
And the necessary data are
freely available!”
What have we learned?
Climate modeling data should be a mainstream resource in power system planning, complementing detailed resource maps and site-specific observations
Our understanding of renewable-based power generation has come a long way over the past decade. The reposi-tory of renewable resource maps, observations, and ana-lytical tools that are available to policy makers, planners, and investors is already impressive, and growing.
Short-term intermittency of renewable resources is an important issue, and determining the level of integra-tion of such resources that is right for individual power systems requires detailed data and analysis. But concern for accuracy in assessments of the short-term potential of specific wind and solar sites has drawn attention away from the even weightier issue of long-term variabil-ity of these resources, variability that holds profound implications for the viability of investments.
When pondering long-term investments in power systems, choices about the mix of renewables and their geographic distribution must take into account seasonal, multiyear, and multidecade variability of the sort derivable from data generated by a suite of well-established GCMs that are available at almost no cost.
Intelligence from these models—used, for example, to simulate power system plans for alternative climate-change scenarios or to reanalyze other data—can help policy makers, planners, and investors understand the optimal mix of capacity and generation for a given power system at various points in time.
Climate modelers and power system planners should work together so that the outputs and scenarios from GCMs can be interpreted carefully and fed into planning models. Power system planners can also use data from climate models to guide decisions on the geographic spread of investments, taking into account the complementarity of their seasonal distribution, the long-term poten-tial of given renewable resources under alternative climate-change
scenarios, and the need for backup measures including interconnec-tion to other systems.
References
Carmin, J., N. Nadkarni and C. Rhie. 2012. “Progress and Challenges in Urban Climate Adaption Planning: Results of a Global Survey.” Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. http://web.mit.edu/jcarmin/www/urbanadapt/Urban%20Adaptation%20Report%20FINAL.pdf
CEA (Central Electricity Authority). 2013a. Load Generation Balance Report 2012–13. Ministry of Power, Government of India. http://www.cea.nic.in/archives/god/lgbr/1213.pdf
Figure 2. Variability in wind-power density by month and year, 1980–2000
Source: Chattopadhyay and Chattopadhyay 2012.
0
50
100
150
200
250
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Win
d po
wer
den
sity
(Wat
ts/s
q m
)
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 AVG
6 I n T e g r a T I n g C l I m a T e m o d e l d a T a I n T o P o W e r S y S T e m P l a n n I n g
“Concern for accuracy in
assessments of the short-
term potential of specific
wind and solar sites has
drawn attention away from
the even weightier issue
of long-term variability of
these resources, variability
that holds profound
implications for the viability
of investments.”
CEA. 2013b. Large Scale Grid Integration of Renewable Energy Resources—Way Forward. Ministry of Power, Government of India. November. http://www.cea.nic.in/reports/powersystems/large_scale_grid_integ.pdf.
Chattopadhyay, D. 2014. Modeling Renewable Energy Impact on the Electricity Market in India, 2014, Available online: http://www.academia.edu/2647279/Modelling_Renewable_Energy_Impact_on_the_Electricity_Market_in_India_forthcoming_in_Renewable_and_Sustainable_Energy_Reviews_
Chattopadhyay, D., and M. Chattopadhyay. 2012. “Climate-Aware Generation Planning: A Case Study of the Tamil Nadu Power System in India.” Electricity Journal 25(6): 62–78.
Delworth, T. L., A. J. Broccoli, A. Rosati, and many others. 2007. GFDL’s CM2 Global Coupled Climate Models. Part 1: Formulation and Simulation Characteristics. Journal of Climate—Special Section 19: 643–674. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.147.4729&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Füssel, H. M. 2007. Adaptation Planning for Climate Change: Concepts, Assessment Approaches, and Key Lessons.” Sustainability Science (2): 265–275.
GE Energy. 2010. Western Wind and Solar Integration Study. Prepared for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy. May. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/47434.pdf.
Gordon, H. B., L. D. Rotstayn, J. L. McGregor, and many others. 2002. The CSIRO Mk3 Climate System Model. Technical Report 60, CSIRO Atmospheric Research, Aspendale, Victoria, Australia. https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=procite:ff94d-b7e-ad41-40bf-b6be-2ab1ad07805c&dsid=DS1.
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research. 2006. “Met Office Hadley Centre Global Environment Model Version 1 (HadGEM1) Data.” NCAS British Atmospheric Data Centre, http://catalogue.ceda.ac.uk/uuid/e18c24b402fbaed061ab2f63e4f22669.
Hasumi, H., and S. Emori (eds). 2004. “K-1 Coupled Model (MIROC) Description.” Tech. Rep. 1, Center for Climate System Research, University of Tokyo. http://ccsr.aori.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~hasumi/miroc_description.pdf.
Hoste, G., M. J. Dvorak, and M. Z. Jacobson. 2010. “Matching Hourly and Peak Demand by Combining Different Renewable Energy Sources: A Case Study for California in 2020.” Atmosphere and Energy Program, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CombiningRenew/HosteFinalDraft
IEA (International Energy Agency). 2005. “Variability of Wind Power and Other Renewables: Management Options and Strategies.” Paris. http://www.uwig.org/iea_report_on_variability.pdf.
IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency). 2013. “IRENA’s Work on Technology Integration Planning. Presentation at Climate Change Impacts and Integrated Assessments XIX, July 22–August 2, Snowmass, Colorado, USA. https://emf.stanford.edu/projects/snowmass-workshops-climate-change-impacts-and-integrat-ed-assessment-cciia.
IRENA. 2011. “Global Atlas for Solar and Wind Energy: Proposal for Implementation, Summary Paper. http://globalatlas.irena.org/UserFiles/Publication/Global%20Atlas%20%20Implementation%20strategy.pdf.
Mansur, E. T., R. Mendelsohn, W. Morrison. 2007. “Climate Change Adaptation: A Study of Fuel Choice and Consumption in the U.S. Energy Sector.” Journal of Environmental and Economic Management 55(2): 175–193.
Meehl, G. A., and T. F. Stocker. 2007. “Global Climate Projections.” In Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H. L. Miller (chapter 10). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assess-ment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter10.pdf.
Meridian Energy. 2011. “Managing Hydrology Risk.” https://www.meridianenergy.co.nz/assets/PDF/Company/Investors/Reports-and-presentations/Investor-presentations/AnalystpresentationManagingHydrologyRisk170811.pdf
7 I n T e g r a T I n g C l I m a T e m o d e l d a T a I n T o P o W e r S y S T e m P l a n n I n g
Padmakumari, B., A. K. Jaswal, and B. N. Goswami. 2013. Decrease in Evaporation over the Indian Monsoon Region: Implication on Regional Hydrological Cycle.” Climatic Change 121: 787–799. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-013-0957-3#page-1.
Phadke, A., R. Bharvirkar, and J. Khangura. 2012. “Reassessing Wind Potential Estimates for India: Economic and Policy Implications (Revision 1).” Report 5077E, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, USA. March.
Roeckner, E., G. Bäuml, L. Bonaventura, R. Brokopf, and many others. 2003. “The Atmospheric General Circulation Model ECHAM5. Part 1: Model description.” Report 349, Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie, Hamburg, Germany.
Xu, M., P.-C. Chang, C. Fu, Y. Qi, A. Robock, D. Robinson, and H. Zhang. 2006. “Steady Decline of East Asian Monsoon Winds, 1969–2000: Evidence from Direct Ground Measurements of Wind Speed.” Journal of Geophysical Research 111: D24111.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the comments received from Stéphane Hallegate and Sebastian Wienges on an earlier draft of this paper. They also thank Vivien Foster and Morgan Bazilian for reviewing the paper and pro-viding helpful comments. Substantial revisions made to the original draft by Steven B. Kennedy to improve clarity and readability are greatly appreciated.
mAke fuRTheR ConneCTionS
live Wire 2014/10. “Implementing onshore Wind Power Projects,” by gabriela elizondo azuela and rafael Ben.
live Wire 2014/17. “Incorporating energy from renewable resources into Power System Planning,” by marcelino madrigal and rhonda lenai Jordan.
live Wire 2015/38. “Integrating Variable renewable energy into Power System operations,” by Thomas nikolakakis and debabrata Chattopadhyay.
The Live Wire series of online knowledge notes is an initiative of the World Bank Group’s Energy and Extractives Global Practice, reflecting the emphasis on knowledge management and solu-tions-oriented knowledge that is emerging from the ongoing change process within the Bank Group.
Each Live Wire delivers, in 3–6 attractive, highly readable pages, knowledge that is immediately relevant to front-line practitioners.
Live Wires take a variety of forms:
• Topic briefs offer technical knowledge on key issues in energy and extractives
• Case studies highlight lessons from experiences in implementation
• Global trends provide analytical overviews of key energy and extractives data
• Bank views portray the Bank Group’s activities in the energy and extractives sectors
• Private eyes present a private sector perspective on topical issues in the field
Each Live Wire will be peer-reviewed by seasoned practitioners in the Bank. Once a year, the Energy and Extractives Global Practice takes stock of all notes that appeared, reviewing their quality and identifying priority areas to be covered in the following year’s pipeline.
Please visit our live Wire web page for updates: http://www.worldbank.org/energy/livewire
Live Wires are designed for easy reading on the screen and for downloading and self-printing in color or black and white.
For World Bank employees: Professional printing can also be undertaken on a customized basis for specific events or occasions by contacting gSdPm Customer Service Center at (202) 458-7479, or sending a written request to [email protected].
Get Connected to live Wire
1 T r a c k i n g P r o g r e s s T o w a r d P r o v i d i n g s u s T a i n a b l e e n e r g y f o r a l l i n e a s T a s i a a n d T h e Pa c i f i c
THE BOTTOM LINE
where does the region stand
on the quest for sustainable
energy for all? in 2010, eaP
had an electrification rate of
95 percent, and 52 percent
of the population had access
to nonsolid fuel for cooking.
consumption of renewable
energy decreased overall
between 1990 and 2010, though
modern forms grew rapidly.
energy intensity levels are high
but declining rapidly. overall
trends are positive, but bold
policy measures will be required
to sustain progress.
2014/28
Elisa Portale is an
energy economist in
the Energy Sector
Management Assistance
Program (ESMAP) of the
World Bank’s Energy and Extractives
Global Practice.
Joeri de Wit is an
energy economist in
the Bank’s Energy and
Extractives Global
Practice.
A K N O W L E D G E N O T E S E R I E S F O R T H E E N E R G Y & E X T R A C T I V E S G L O B A L P R A C T I C E
Tracking Progress Toward Providing Sustainable Energy
for All in East Asia and the Pacific
Why is this important?
Tracking regional trends is critical to monitoring
the progress of the Sustainable Energy for All
(SE4ALL) initiative
In declaring 2012 the “International Year of Sustainable Energy for
All,” the UN General Assembly established three objectives to be
accomplished by 2030: to ensure universal access to modern energy
services,1 to double the 2010 share of renewable energy in the global
energy mix, and to double the global rate of improvement in energy
efficiency relative to the period 1990–2010 (SE4ALL 2012).
The SE4ALL objectives are global, with individual countries setting
their own national targets in a way that is consistent with the overall
spirit of the initiative. Because countries differ greatly in their ability
to pursue the three objectives, some will make more rapid progress
in one area while others will excel elsewhere, depending on their
respective starting points and comparative advantages as well as on
the resources and support that they are able to marshal.
To sustain momentum for the achievement of the SE4ALL
objectives, a means of charting global progress to 2030 is needed.
The World Bank and the International Energy Agency led a consor-
tium of 15 international agencies to establish the SE4ALL Global
Tracking Framework (GTF), which provides a system for regular
global reporting, based on rigorous—yet practical, given available
1 The universal access goal will be achieved when every person on the planet has access
to modern energy services provided through electricity, clean cooking fuels, clean heating fuels,
and energy for productive use and community services. The term “modern cooking solutions”
refers to solutions that involve electricity or gaseous fuels (including liquefied petroleum gas),
or solid/liquid fuels paired with stoves exhibiting overall emissions rates at or near those of
liquefied petroleum gas (www.sustainableenergyforall.org).
databases—technical measures. This note is based on that frame-
work (World Bank 2014). SE4ALL will publish an updated version of
the GTF in 2015.
The primary indicators and data sources that the GTF uses to
track progress toward the three SE4ALL goals are summarized below.
• Energy access. Access to modern energy services is measured
by the percentage of the population with an electricity
connection and the percentage of the population with access
to nonsolid fuels.2 These data are collected using household
surveys and reported in the World Bank’s Global Electrification
Database and the World Health Organization’s Household Energy
Database.
• Renewable energy. The share of renewable energy in the
energy mix is measured by the percentage of total final energy
consumption that is derived from renewable energy resources.
Data used to calculate this indicator are obtained from energy
balances published by the International Energy Agency and the
United Nations.
• Energy efficiency. The rate of improvement of energy efficiency
is approximated by the compound annual growth rate (CAGR)
of energy intensity, where energy intensity is the ratio of total
primary energy consumption to gross domestic product (GDP)
measured in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms. Data used to
calculate energy intensity are obtained from energy balances
published by the International Energy Agency and the United
Nations.
2 Solid fuels are defined to include both traditional biomass (wood, charcoal, agricultural
and forest residues, dung, and so on), processed biomass (such as pellets and briquettes), and
other solid fuels (such as coal and lignite).
1 T r a c k i n g P r o g r e s s To wa r d P r o v i d i n g s u s Ta i n a b l e e n e r g y f o r a l l i n e a s T e r n e u r o P e a n d c e n T r a l a s i a
THE BOTTOM LINE
where does the region stand
on the quest for sustainable
energy for all? The region
has near-universal access to
electricity, and 93 percent of
the population has access
to nonsolid fuel for cooking.
despite relatively abundant
hydropower, the share
of renewables in energy
consumption has remained
relatively low. very high energy
intensity levels have come
down rapidly. The big questions
are how renewables will evolve
when energy demand picks up
again and whether recent rates
of decline in energy intensity
will continue.
2014/29
Elisa Portale is an
energy economist in
the Energy Sector
Management Assistance
Program (ESMAP) of the
World Bank’s Energy and Extractives
Global Practice.
Joeri de Wit is an
energy economist in
the Bank’s Energy and
Extractives Global
Practice.
A K N O W L E D G E N O T E S E R I E S F O R T H E E N E R G Y & E X T R A C T I V E S G L O B A L P R A C T I C E
Tracking Progress Toward Providing Sustainable Energy
for All in Eastern Europe and Central Asia
Why is this important?
Tracking regional trends is critical to monitoring
the progress of the Sustainable Energy for All
(SE4ALL) initiative
In declaring 2012 the “International Year of Sustainable Energy for
All,” the UN General Assembly established three global objectives
to be accomplished by 2030: to ensure universal access to modern
energy services,1 to double the 2010 share of renewable energy in
the global energy mix, and to double the global rate of improvement
in energy efficiency relative to the period 1990–2010 (SE4ALL 2012).
The SE4ALL objectives are global, with individual countries setting
their own national targets in a way that is consistent with the overall
spirit of the initiative. Because countries differ greatly in their ability
to pursue the three objectives, some will make more rapid progress
in one area while others will excel elsewhere, depending on their
respective starting points and comparative advantages as well as on
the resources and support that they are able to marshal.
To sustain momentum for the achievement of the SE4ALL
objectives, a means of charting global progress to 2030 is needed.
The World Bank and the International Energy Agency led a consor-
tium of 15 international agencies to establish the SE4ALL Global
Tracking Framework (GTF), which provides a system for regular
global reporting, based on rigorous—yet practical, given available
1 The universal access goal will be achieved when every person on the planet has access
to modern energy services provided through electricity, clean cooking fuels, clean heating fuels,
and energy for productive use and community services. The term “modern cooking solutions”
refers to solutions that involve electricity or gaseous fuels (including liquefied petroleum gas),
or solid/liquid fuels paired with stoves exhibiting overall emissions rates at or near those of
liquefied petroleum gas (www.sustainableenergyforall.org).
databases—technical measures. This note is based on that frame-
work (World Bank 2014). SE4ALL will publish an updated version of
the GTF in 2015.
The primary indicators and data sources that the GTF uses to
track progress toward the three SE4ALL goals are summarized below.
Energy access. Access to modern energy services is measured
by the percentage of the population with an electricity connection
and the percentage of the population with access to nonsolid fuels.2
These data are collected using household surveys and reported
in the World Bank’s Global Electrification Database and the World
Health Organization’s Household Energy Database.
Renewable energy. The share of renewable energy in the energy
mix is measured by the percentage of total final energy consumption
that is derived from renewable energy resources. Data used to
calculate this indicator are obtained from energy balances published
by the International Energy Agency and the United Nations.
Energy efficiency. The rate of improvement of energy efficiency is
approximated by the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of energy
intensity, where energy intensity is the ratio of total primary energy
consumption to gross domestic product (GDP) measured in purchas-
ing power parity (PPP) terms. Data used to calculate energy intensity
are obtained from energy balances published by the International
Energy Agency and the United Nations.
This note uses data from the GTF to provide a regional and
country perspective on the three pillars of SE4ALL for Eastern
2 Solid fuels are defined to include both traditional biomass (wood, charcoal, agricultural
and forest residues, dung, and so on), processed biomass (such as pellets and briquettes), and
other solid fuels (such as coal and lignite).
“Live Wire is designed
for practitioners inside
and outside the Bank.
It is a resource to
share with clients and
counterparts.”