Latest news with #IEEFA
Time of India
6 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Can emerging markets balance climate goals and jobs? IEEFA says it's time for co-investment push
New Delhi: What happens to coal workers when the last mine shuts down? How will small rural livelihoods survive the shift to clean energy? A new report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis ( IEEFA ) warns that as emerging economies transition away from fossil fuels, millions of workers and communities face the risk of being left behind—unless targeted co-financing models and just transition strategies are adopted. According to the report, ensuring vulnerable workers and communities are not excluded during the energy transition is one of the biggest challenges for emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs). At the same time, the shift opens up new job opportunities and avenues for economic growth if planned with social equity in mind. 'Combining climate action with social equity can facilitate the energy transition in emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs) without disrupting sectors that rely solely on fossil fuels,' said Shantanu Srivastava, IEEFA's research lead, sustainable finance and climate risk. 'A Just Transition aims to manage this change fairly by protecting affected workers and communities, creating opportunities for economic growth and ensuring the benefits of the transition are shared widely,' Srivastava said. While fossil fuel industries face the risk of stranded assets, large companies often have the resources and access to capital to adapt. The report noted that the greater risk for governments lies in the potential economic disruption to entire communities dependent on fossil operations. The report proposes a 'co-investment' approach to support asset closures and community resilience. This includes combining investments in renewable energy with Just Transition activities such as labour reskilling, social support, and micro-enterprise development. These programmes often require concessional or grant-based finance. 'Just Transition activities encompass a mix of hard energy transition assets, such as renewable energy, climate smart agriculture, and climate-resilient infrastructure, and 'softer' Just Transition aspects like responsible coal asset closures, stakeholder capacity building, labour reskilling, support for micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs), and community resilience,' said Soni Tiwari, energy finance analyst at IEEFA. The report draws on case studies from India, the Philippines, Ethiopia and South Africa to illustrate how targeted planning and coordinated intervention can enable a socially inclusive energy transition. In the Philippines, the Accelerating Coal Transition (ACT) investment plan demonstrates how securing early-stage grant commitments for Just Transition support helped mobilise concessional and commercial capital for fossil fuel asset closure and repurposing. South Africa's Just Energy Transition Investment Plan (JET-IP) highlights the importance of institutional coordination, governance frameworks, and dedicated platforms that link funders with project developers. In India, a targeted programme for MSMEs enabled coordination among domestic, multilateral, and philanthropic investors to drive clean energy adoption. Another programme, Zero-Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF), focused on capacity-building to create self-sustaining, low-carbon agricultural models for vulnerable communities. In Ethiopia, a rural water programme financed by the United Nations Green Climate Fund (GCF) demonstrated the role of grant-based funding in fragile contexts and the importance of empowering local institutions. 'With fiscal pressures mounting and fossil fuel revenues expected to decline, EMDE governments should look beyond their own budgets to a diverse set of capital providers, including multilateral development agencies, private investors, development banks and philanthropies,' Tiwari said. 'The financing challenge is not only about scale, but also about targeting suitable forms of capital for the right activities based on their risk-return profiles and developmental impact,' Srivastava added. The report concludes that by strengthening monitoring systems, aligning national schemes and fostering partnerships, EMDEs can mobilise funding more effectively and advance a just and inclusive transition to clean energy.
The Guardian
14-06-2025
- General
- The Guardian
How to stay warm this winter without breaking the bank
For many Australians the onset of winter has often meant piling on extra layers at home, waking up breathing a mist of condensation and keeping blankets and doonas handy on the couch as the winter chill bites. Either that or racking up massive winter energy bills powering inefficient appliances in uninsulated homes. But according to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), the first step to reducing massive bills and increasing winter comfort is to switch away from gas. Their most recent modelling shows that a typical home in Melbourne could save over $1,300 annually by switching its gas appliances to efficient electric alternatives. With that in mind, what are the most carbon (and wallet) friendly ways to stay warm this winter? Tim Forcey, author of My Efficient Electric Home Handbook, says that after working and writing about home efficiency for over a decade – the verdict is in and the most sustainable and cheapest way to heat your home over winter is with reverse-cycle air conditioners. The main hurdle preventing their widespread use comes down to branding. 'We've demonised the use of air conditioners – some people still think they should only be used in emergencies,' he says. 'But the reality is that heating with an air-con can cost a third of the cost of heating with gas.' Jay Gordon from IEEFA says he has calculated that a reverse-cycle air conditioner uses about a fifth of the energy of a ducted heater. 'Heat pump hot water systems are also several times more efficient than gas hot water systems, and homes that fully replace their gas appliances can save over $300 in fixed annual charges by disconnecting from the gas network,' he says. So switching away from gas is the first step towards a more efficient and less costly warm home in winter – and it is worth looking into any government rebates available in your area to take the sting out of upgrading your home. Electric and oil heaters can of course still serve a purpose if used in small spaces such as under your desk at home, says Forcey, as they work like a toaster and can take the edge off. Many may also have the advantage of including timers to regulate their use, but it's worth keeping track of how much energy they use to make sure you don't get a nasty surprise at the end of winter. It's worth noting that several Australian states are now offering significant rebates for installing electric appliances. In Victoria, if gas appliances break down, it is now often cheaper to replace them with more efficient electric appliances. We all know that most older Australian homes and apartments can feel like glorified tents in winter so DIY, low-cost improvements such as draught stoppers, gap sealings, and even installing heavy curtains and keeping them closed during the day, can help your home retain heat and remove drafts. On top of renewable energy upgrades, it's also vital that you prepare your home with back-to-basics thermal efficiency improvements. The most practical home renovations you could make include double-glazing your windows and upgrading ceiling insulation. These investments can make a big impact in terms of reducing energy consumption and cost. It's also worth considering having a smart meter installed in your home to help understand and regulate your overall energy consumption patterns. These will allow you to monitor your electricity consumption in real time (even remotely) and eliminate the need for manual meter readings or estimated bills. For those renting or without the budget to upgrade your home's energy system or undertake costly renovations – other practical measures include something as simple as taking advantage of the sun's rays during the day by spending more time in those rooms that attract the most direct sunlight. And if double-glazing is outside your budget, using bubble-wrap over the windows in winter is a poor-man's solution that will help regulate your home's thermal envelope. Another age-old trick I've found myself doing is wearing my mother's warm hand-knitted socks both around the home and in bed to increase personal comfort levels as the mercury drops. Of course, perhaps the most practical way to stay warm this winter might be to find yourself a warm pet or human to cuddle. But that's something no government rebate can help you with.
The Guardian
13-06-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Spending billions on unclean, risky energy? What a nuclear waste
Rolls-Royce pressurised water reactors have powered British nuclear subs since 1966, but small modular reactors (SMRs) aren't yet proven at scale anywhere on land (Rolls-Royce named winning bidder for UK small nuclear reactors, 10 June). Only three are operating worldwide: two in Russia, one in China. Argentina is constructing the world's fourth; is Labour simply keen to keep up with historical geopolitical rivals (Sizewell C power station to be built as part of UK's £14bn nuclear investment, 10 June)? The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) reported actual cost overruns of 300% to 700% for all four projects. Rolls-Royce claims costs of £35 to £50 per MWh; so should we triple this? The government says the SMR project would create 3,000 new low-carbon British jobs, but at what cost? The energy secretary, Ed Miliband, can't know the true costs yet, and three reactors doesn't scream 'economies of scale'. Yet £2.5bn is already 10 times more than Great British Energy has invested into simple, cheap rooftop solar, which democratises energy savings. The true cost of renewables must consider intermittency and balancing costs, but why not invest more in flexibility through distributed renewables and grid-scale storage? And what of energy security? SMRs may mitigate against Putin snipping offshore wind cables, but increased reliance on imported uranium, and a heightened nuclear waste security threat, are significant risks. Last May, the IEEFA concluded that SMRs 'are still too expensive, too slow and too risky', and that we 'should embrace the reality that renewables, not SMRs, are the near-term solution to the energy transition'. Has this truly changed? The climate crisis requires scaling all feasible solutions as fast as possible, but, with limited capital, we should prioritise those that make economic sense HillMBA student, Cambridge Judge Business School As Nils Pratley says, Great British Energy's budget has been nuked to divert funding away from local energy initiatives (11 June). But let's get away from the idea that SMRs are a cutting-edge technology. Rolls-Royce is proposing a 470MW reactor, the same size as the first-generation Magnox reactors. Their 'small' modular reactor, if it ever emerges, will use the familiar method of generating a lot of heat in a very complex and expensive manner, in order to boil water and turn a turbine. It will bequeath yet more radioactive waste to add to the burden and risk at Sellafield. In the meantime, if government SMR funding continues, it takes money away from opportunities for cutting-edge technical and social innovation, discovery and training all around the country, as schools, hospitals, community groups, network operators and all of us get to grips with renewables-based systems. This sort of innovation is necessary, it's already benefiting us and it needs full-on government support rather than uneasy compromises with an increasingly redundant nuclear DarbyEmerita research fellow, Environmental Change Institute I'm a Scot who moved to the US in 1982. I returned to the UK seven years ago. In my time in the US, I worked with a few contractors as a chemist and health and safety manager on a number of environmental clean-up projects, chemical, biological and nuclear. The nuclear clean-up sites I worked on directly and indirectly were Hanford in Washington state, and Rocky Flats, Colorado. The multibillion-dollar Hanford cleanup is ongoing. Most of the problems there are as a result of gross mismanagement of nuclear waste during the cold war. I very much believe in wind, solar and other environmental solutions to energy production. I am cautiously supportive of small‑scale nuclear energy, but outraged by this government's failure to include the costs of the disposal of past, current and future nuclear waste in its support of 'cheap energy'. Has Ed Miliband taken into account future waste management issues? Google Hanford cleanup to see the real expense. Can we trust this and any future government to protect the environment, public health and the taxpayer from future nuclear 'cost overruns'?Peter HolmyardEdinburgh The more I read about the government's nuclear intentions, the more it sounds like HS2 all over again, ie another financial boondoggle. Where are the detailed costings? What is our experience with cost overruns, eg at Hinkley Point C? What is the overseas experience with pressurised water reactors (the kind proposed for Sizewell C) at Olkiluoto, at Flamanville, at Taishan? Uniformly bad in all cases, actually. No matter which way you look at this, viz the future cost overruns, the facts that we consumers will be on the hook for them, that reactors are never constructed on time, that nuclear wastes are unaudited, that we have to import all our uranium, that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in 2023 that renewables are 10 times better than nuclear at lowering carbon emissions, all point to a remarkably poor decision by the government, sad to Ian FairlieIndependent consultant on radioactivity in the environment; vice-president, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Canada Standard
12-06-2025
- Business
- Canada Standard
Risks, Uncertainty Cloud Future of Ksi Lisims LNG Facility: IEEFA
The Indigenous-owned Ksi Lisims liquefied natural gas (LNG) project in British Columbia faces major local risks and global market uncertainty that could derail its success, a new report warns. With these challenges factored into financial projections, it is "highly unlikely" that the floating gas liquefaction and export terminal can be delivered on budget, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) writes in the report. Planned for B.C's northern coast, Ksi Lisims would export 12 million tonnes of liquified natural gas per year, supplied by the approved-but not yet built-Prince Rupert Gas Transmission line. It is located on Nisga'a land and backed by a partnership between the Nisga'a Nation, Texas-based Western LNG, and Alberta's Rockies LNG. The project is undergoing environmental assessments and seeking regulatory approvals ahead of a final investment decision expected later this year. But Ksi Lisims has faced opposition from the start. Last November, Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs declared plans for an Indigenous Protected and Conserved Area (IPCA) to block the pipeline's route over environmental concerns. The pipeline also crosses rugged terrain and sensitive marine areas, adding engineering and regulatory hurdles, says IEEFA. View our latest digests Challenges like these significantly affect Ksi Lisims' financial prospects, suggests IEEFA's analysis. The project's dependence on the Prince Rupert pipeline for feed gas is a key risk, the report states. B.C. has just recently confirmed that the pipeline permit is viable after it expired last November, but some First Nations have legally challenged it, alleging inadequate consultation and environmental review. Protests led by the Gitananyow Hereditary Chiefs could add more costs, as with past megaprojects like the Coastal GasLink pipeline, writes IEEFA. Ksi Lisims' developers say they will reduce emissions by powering the facility with renewable hydropower from the B.C. grid, and are targeting net-zero operations. But IEEFA cites uncertainty about securing BC Hydro's electricity supply as another layer of risk, imperilling the facility's net-zero ambitions and thus its regulatory compliance. "Without hydroelectricity, Ksi Lisims LNG will have to rely on gas-powered turbines which increase project capital costs by approximately C$2 billion," adds IEEFA. The project partners have yet to finalize an agreement with BC Hydro to connect the facility to the North Coast Transmission Line. Meanwhile, other upcoming LNG projects in the province are competing for the same grid capacity. Net revenue is also questionable given the lack of LNG takers, IEEFA writes, estimating that about 70% of planned production has no dedicated buyer. The twin floating LNG barges planned for the terminal face higher operating costs in harsh marine environments, are largely "unproven in Canadian waters," and will provide few local jobs. And by the time Ksi Lisims would start supplying LNG-its targeted completion date is in 2029-many similar projects are due to come online across the world, creating a global glut, IEEFA writes. This oversupply could align with weakening demand-as expanding clean energy capacity and tighter emissions regulations lead to structural declines in LNG use. Evolving domestic markets could also undermine success, as competition for gas as a feedstock within Canada limits the volumes available for export. "While project developers praise its potential economic benefits, the viability of the Ksi Lisims project depends on its ability to overcome cost pressures, secure firm purchase commitments, and navigate a highly competitive global LNG market amid uncertainties about demand trends," writes IEEFA. "At this point, both the project and Canada's broader LNG ambitions remain vulnerable to formidable headwinds." Source: The Energy Mix
Time of India
11-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Explainer: Why LNG is struggling to displace coal in India's biggest sectors
New Delhi: When it comes to India's energy transition, natural gas—specifically LNG —has long been promoted as a cleaner, flexible "bridge fuel." The idea was simple: gas would help India move away from coal while renewables scaled up. But nearly a decade after this narrative took root, a new IEEFA report challenges its core assumptions. The findings? LNG is not displacing coal in India's largest energy-consuming sectors. And the country's limited gas infrastructure, high costs, and concentrated demand growth are making that transition more fragile than many policymakers would care to admit. Fertilisers: The real driver of India's LNG demand One of the most striking takeaways from the report is how uneven LNG demand growth in India has been. From FY2016 to FY2025, nearly all of India's increase in LNG demand—11 bcm—has come from the fertiliser sector. Government subsidies have shielded fertiliser producers from global LNG price volatility, allowing the sector to absorb more gas than any other. This support comes at a steep cost. The fertiliser subsidy bill crossed ₹2 lakh crore in FY23, driven largely by rising fuel input costs. As IEEFA's Purva Jain points out, "In sectors that do not receive large public subsidies or government support, LNG demand growth remains to be seen." The data backs it up. According to IEEFA's analysis, while fertilisers added 11 bcm of gas demand, the power sector—India's largest coal user—saw demand fall by 2.01 bcm. LNG simply isn't competitive against cheaper domestic coal or imported Indonesian coal. The power sector: A shrinking gas footprint India's power sector accounts for 70% of coal consumption, but natural gas now makes up less than 2% of the generation mix—down from 13% in FY2010. "Gas-fired power generation has floundered," says Sam Reynolds , LNG/Gas Research Lead at IEEFA Asia. "Renewables now account for 12% of India's generation mix—four times more than a decade earlier." The economics are hard to ignore. In FY2024, average LNG prices were nine times higher than domestic coal and more than twice the price of Indonesian coal. In such an environment, utilities are turning away from gas. As the IEEFA report highlights, 31 gas-based power plants representing nearly 8 GW of capacity generated no electricity in FY2025. Over 5.3 GW of that was retired in April 2025 due to inoperability. India is also not planning to build new gas-fired capacity through 2032, choosing instead to leapfrog directly to renewables and battery storage for peak demand management. Industrial and transport sectors: Flat or falling Iron and steel, India's second-largest coal-consuming sector, has also shown negligible shift toward gas. Since FY2016, gas demand in this segment increased by only 0.63 bcm—and 87% of that came from domestic gas, not LNG. Though India is the world's largest producer of direct reduced iron (DRI), about 80% of DRI production relies on coal-fired rotary kilns. Other energy-intensive sectors like refineries and petrochemicals also show stagnant or declining gas use. As Jain notes, "In many energy-intensive sectors like petrochemical production and refineries, demand for gas and LNG has not increased over the past decade." In the transport sector, despite early CNG adoption in urban India, electric vehicles have emerged as strong competitors. Between rising EV penetration and volatile LNG pricing, gas's foothold in transport is far from assured. City gas and urban networks: A silver lining with limits While most traditional sectors have stagnated, city gas distribution (CGD) has grown—up by 9.65 bcm since FY2016. However, even this growth has been primarily domestic-gas driven (7 bcm), with just 2.65 bcm coming from imported LNG. CGD growth is a bright spot, driven by rising demand for piped cooking gas and CNG vehicles. But its potential to offset broader industrial and power sector stagnation remains limited unless infrastructure expands rapidly and pricing becomes more transparent. Infrastructure risks and stranded assets India's push to expand gas infrastructure—including LNG import terminals and transmission pipelines—risks running into underutilisation. As demand growth remains concentrated in a few sectors like fertilisers and city gas, the utilisation rates of expensive gas infrastructure are falling short. "Rather than using LNG when cheaper domestic gas is unavailable, consumers may opt for more affordable alternatives," says Reynolds . This, in turn, threatens to turn new pipelines and terminals into stranded assets. What needs to change? The IEEFA report suggests that bullish forecasts for India's LNG growth are contingent on substantial reforms. First, end-user price sensitivity must be addressed. Without reforms in gas pricing and subsidy rationalisation, LNG will remain viable only in highly subsidised sectors. Second, India's gas infrastructure planning must be realistic. Rather than blanket expansion, future investments must align with actual demand growth potential. Third, industrial gas pricing should be restructured to improve parity with coal and electrification alternatives. Lastly, India must acknowledge the elephant in the room: in most major coal-consuming sectors, LNG is neither affordable nor scalable under current market dynamics. The bottom line The myth of LNG as a bridge fuel for India is being steadily chipped away by data. As the country moves toward a cleaner energy economy, it must accept that gas will play a limited role—especially in sectors dominated by coal. For fertilisers and city gas, LNG will continue to be relevant in the short term. But for power, steel, and large industry, the future is far more likely to be shaped by renewable electricity, energy storage, and direct electrification than by LNG imports. IEEFA's report underscores a sobering truth: India's gas story isn't about clean transitions—it's about selective survival.
