Connect with us

Energy

Reinventing the idea of single part tariff for power distribution to domestic consumers: Does it make sense!

Published

on

Prior to 1992, a single part tariff based on  cost plus on actual basis was in place in India’s power sector according to schedule 6 of Electricity supply act 1948.  Single part tariff, though outdated due to several issues, is being reconsidered by some of the regulatory bodies to bring in transparency to the system along with making it more accessible to customer.

Prior to 1997,  the rationale for a single part average tariff in transmission and distribution was that it is not cost effective or technically possible to segregate the various cost elements in the system. Unbundling tariffs would require system load studies on a dynamic basis to identify the nature and direction of flows to various constituents of the system. However, it was agreed upon that some form unbundling would better allocate costs and result in efficient outcomes. At that point of time, technology and operational constraints were major hindrances in implementing multi part tariff.

The reconsideration of introducing the single part tariff  is to have a balanced approach where in customers interest can be taken care of in terms of actual usage of power with due consideration given to quality of power supplied. At the same time, it will be ensured that the distribution companies (discoms) recover their fixed cost incurred in laying down the necessary infrastructure. Utilities will prefer to have such a mechanism as it will reduce their risk of lower sales and hide much inefficiency. On the other side, it will reduce customer control with no incentive to reduce power consumption and increase efficiency at customer end. While prima facie, the idea of introducing single part tariff on the basis of minimum contracted load seems lucrative for the domestic consumers at short term, the impact of this on medium term and long term needs to be evaluated in details. The value chain of electricity comprises from generation to distribution with consumer being at the receiving end of the services. Besides economic contribution, electricity plays a major role in sustainable living for the common people. Hence the tariff setting process and its implications in calculation of final electricity cost plays a crucial role for each and every customer at large.

As the customers segment is fragmented and not homogeneous to each and every states, the applicability of such a system and its overall viability remains a question mark. While it may be designed for a set of customers, say domestic customers where there is predictability on the power consumption to a larger extent, designing such a system for other customers like agricultural and industrial nay be worrisome.

Consumers are majorly concerned about the electricity bills and the services they are getting from the utilities. They are least concerned about the operation of the distribution utilities and the way discoms function which is best left to the utilities and regulators to decide upon.

What it ails for the costumers at large?

The existing system of billing does not reflect various components of the fixed cost and the methodology on how the price fixing is done for arriving at the fixed cost per  MW per month basis. Consumers often fail to understand the rationale behind the fixed price fixation. The arbitrary nature of price fixation for the fixed cost component has been always a bone of contention between the consumers and the utilities. It is perceived that the fixed cost component should be gradually declined while the assets are depreciating over a time period. Also, if there is no significant up-gradation of the assets owing to the increased contracted load or demand, it should be diminishing in nature only with O&M component forming the major part of the recovery.

Giving a break up of fixed charges and rationale for price increase would have been a good idea for the regulator to consider. Discoms need to clearly show these components to keep a track of its own spending for planning and revenue generation. In the absence of such a system, there may be an attempt to hide various other inefficiencies in the grab of higher fixed cost component in the distribution segment to mop up higher revenues for the distribution companies.  DERC (Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission) in a recent judgment hiked the fixed charges for high electricity consumers (under domestic category) above 2 kW contracted load. While consumers with 3kW, 4kW and 5kW would pay a fixed charge of INR 105, INR 140 and INR 175 per month, there will be a reduction of fixed charges for consumers with contracted load of 1kw ( INR 40 to INR 20 per month) and there is no change for consumers of 2kW contracted load. This is irrespective of electricity usage by consumers. The rationale for such a decision needs to be evaluated in details. It seems that it is an indirect way to pass on the cost without directly revising tariffs for the consumers.

Consumers are also worried about power quality and availability. The regulator is right when it says there is valid concern from consumers for not getting power for 24×7 but paying for the fixed cost for power outages and unavailability. Linking of the fixed cost at pro rata basis to the actual hour of power supplied will be definitely a good move from the regulator.

Though this system would sensitize the costumer to actually use less power and contract lesser load for its requirement, fixing a cap of contracted load from the regulator will not help them. In the same time, discoms would like to recover a certain amount from the customer and will not allow for a lesser demand from the customer. In these circumstances, it would be prudent to think of a system where in an annual connection load fee (bare minimum that would suffice to the discoms additional charges that cannot be passed on via fixed charges or variable charges) that can be collected over 12 months with monthly consumption charges.

Similarly for a consumer, who is consuming a higher amount of energy will end up spending the actual amount under the existing system. On the contrary, the consumer may want to game the system with showing less contracted capacity and consuming more units of energy and eventually stressing out the grid. The penalty system might not be deterrence to this in comparison with overall fixed charges asked for. This will result in frequent tripping if the single point contracted load is less than the actual withdrawal.

It will only create chaos at the short term and in the long term bulk domestic consumers would like to shift to stand alone systems or captive power systems. They may also switch to have their own roof top solar as an alternative. In this way, utility will have a greater risk in losing their loyal costumer which will dent their business perspective.

What is in store for the distribution Utilities?

The operational efficiency and management of power procurement and distribution at the utility remains a major concern for most of the utilities in India. Due to inaccurate demand prediction from the consumers, they fail to secure long term power procurement orders. Also, utilities show it as an excuse for not getting into fresh procurement contracts. Instead, they prefer to go for short term power procurement from traders or power exchanges at a high cost and pass on the burden to consumers. Regulators need to be more careful to this aspect so that additional unplanned burden should not be passed on to the consumers. In other way, utilities prefer in heavy load shedding in summer seasons or at the peak hours of operations. Sometimes, due to pressure from various sources (mostly political), they tend to overdraw from the grid, resulting a heavy penalty on the utility. It also jeopardizes the grid system security.

The lack of long term planning for system up gradation and securing future power procurement comes from the faulty demand forecasting at the consumer level. As consumers seem to show less contracted capacity but actually draw more than their contractual capacity, it puts both the grid system and its security at a higher risk. The proposed model will no doubt will put additional revenue to the pockets of power distribution utilities in short term as costumers will end up paying a higher amount. In long term, it will act as a catalyst to push inefficiency to the system and there is also risk of  good performing discom going the other way around.  It would be very difficult to assess the demand on annual basis and vague estimations of ARR (Annual Revenue requirement) might be a possibility.

Despite severe power outages, several regions in India show power surplus owing to the faulty data and information fed into the system. The proposed system will aggravate the situation further. This will project a false scenario that there is less demand from the consumer side and hence the power procurement planning may be effected. It may act as a blessing in disguise for the discoms to continue the ill practice of manipulating data at the demand end. Also, the transparency in the operations of distribution utilities stands a chance of being compromised. This is a structural issue; with government owned discoms play hardball showing that there is reduced shortage at their end while for private discoms this would be an opportunity lost in the system planning.

As far the domestic consumers are concerned, the solar roof-tops are anticipated to gain huge momentum as cost of power consumption shall not vary as per the rated or designated load but as per connections. With huge levels of discrepancies observed at load estimations of the country as utilities manipulate the data for drawl and injection, the single part tariff will act as a blessing in disguise for the discoms to continue the ill practice.

The Challenges for the Regulator:

On the regulators side also, there will be implementation challenges in fixing minimum contracted load for an individual consumer or to a group society at large. Whether it will be done by the utility or to be left with individual consumers or group housing society remains a question mark as of now?  But regulators can come with a proposition to charge extra tariff where demand exceeds contracted amount to balance out for the grid stability and compensate the discoms provided services are provided.

The setting of proper benchmarks for contracted capacity for such a scenario would be a difficult task.  Will it be based on income level of the person for an individual level or the life style it demands based on the appliances at the households? Similarly in the case of a society, where there are people from various income levels, electricity consumption level, life styles, it would be difficult to assess their demand and put strict contracted load criteria. This would also result in discrepancies and putting a benchmark on consumption level would be difficult. Averaging out may distort the overall balance towards either side (consumer or the utility). Also, the seasonal requirement adjustment of the fixed cost would be a big concern.  Only changing the fixed component up and down without any proper framework would serve no purpose and it will be an eye wash only.

The utility needs to find out how much volume the consumer demands in terms of power consumption for a specific time for the experiment to succeed. Also, it needs to access the overall effect on the revenue streams from these consumers. Smart metering at consumer end can be an option where in “Time of Day” consumption can be tracked with power outage time to check on quality of power supplied. Besides this, it may be a boomerang for the utility as consumers are very sensitive to price and they will not allow such a system to be experimented with. One can also assume the political slugfest that may be created out of this.  It would be better for the regulator to keep pressing for the technological interventions and installation of smart meters or pre-paid meters.

A comprehensive study may also be carried out after installation of smart meters to study the load profile in details and planning can be made thereafter accordingly. This can be taken by the regulators itself rather than passing it to the discoms. Regulators need to be sensitive on this issue as any changes made at the consumer level has a cascading effect on the entire value chain of electricity that is from distribution to generation. The effect on the other segments also needs to be studied in details before making any changes down the line. Any changes in the regulation should not be seen as a going back to the pre reformed era without proper evaluation of both sides of the string.

Continue Reading
Comments

Energy

The power of Siberia heralds a landmark of Sino-Russian solidarity

Published

on

Authors: Zhou Dongchen, Paul Wang

Although China and Russia have forged their comprehensive strategic partnership into a de facto alliance, it is still opined in the way of the classical geopolitics. Yet, the east-route of China-Russia natural gas pipeline which was functional on December 2 has since heralded a new milestone for deepened energy cooperation between these two Eurasian powers. The project that was signed in 2014 is a $400-billion-gas supply deal and connects the world’s largest natural gas supplier (with a total length of more than 5,000 km) and the most potential natural gas consumer market. It is the first natural gas pipeline between the two largest land powers and also the first cross-border gas pipeline in northeast China. Technically, it is scheduled to be completed in 2020.

China and Russia lost no time to show a video call on December 2 as the two heads of state, Xi and Putin, jointly witnessed the launching ceremony of the China-Russia east-route natural gas pipeline. Xi, in Beijing, hailed the pipeline as a historical deal of Sino-Russian energy cooperation, describing it as a win-win model of major powers’ cooperation. He requested to ensure the project’s safety and reliability and to promote sustainable economic and social development in areas along the pipeline.

For sure, the east-route pipeline is not only supplied to China, but also to the local consumers in Russia’s Far East. In addition, the project would insure to create jobs and bring in more income for the local Russians, further promoting the economic and social development in Russia. Due to this, Putin announced in Russia’s Sochi that inauguration of the pipeline is of historic significance and would bring bilateral strategic relations to new heights. The event itself can be perceived both historical and unprecedented because a gas route has been laid underneath the Eurasian gas space and now moving towards one of the largest geoeconomic formation. With this large-scale gas project started, a new page will open in bilateral relations not only in the energy field, but also there is enormous potential for further development and further cooperation.

Considering that China and Russia have cooperated in the fields of natural and oil projects for decades, why is the east-route gas so significant to the two sides? Firstly, trans-regional gas projects, also named as “the power of Siberia”, contribute to the development of many regions inside and outside the two countries, which subsequently invest additional infrastructure and jobs. As the Chinese market is constantly growing, and in recent years has been growing at double-digit rates, Beijing’s energy needs will continue to grow steadily. Secondly, while coal remains the main source of energy for Chinese economic leap, a further industrialization has led to increasing environmental backlash. Be aware of the plights of its dependence on coal, China has been driven by the urgent needs over the past years to have accelerated the use of clean and newer environmental standards backed up by its significant efforts to combat air pollution.

Accordingly, it is not surprising that China is keen in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, striving to reduce the use of coal and strictly implementing the Paris Accords, including China’s large investments in its research and development of large-scale energy efficiency programs, and the rapid expansion of the renewable energy and nuclear energy. Therefore, the Power of Siberia gas pipeline will not only contribute to the socio-economic development of the Far East, but will also create conditions for gas supply and gasification of the Russian regions alongside the development of modern gas processing and gas-chemical industries in Russia. Taking into account a new map of the global energy being formed, it is fair to argue that “the Power of Siberia” would create a new pipeline system in the existing transport corridor of the Siberia to the borders of the two countries and beyond in the near future.

For sure, it is necessary to note the great merit of two leaders-Chinese President Xi and his Russian counterpart Putin-under the strategic leadership of which Sino-Russian relations of comprehensive coordination and strategic partnership have entered a new era. This is characterized by the highest degree of mutual trust, the highest level of interaction and strategic consensus. In light of the current international reality where the United States has always used the difference in political systems and diplomatic philosophies to attack China Russia with a cold war mentality, the further strengthening of the strategic interaction between the two Eurasian powers is of special meaning and the impacts on the world peace and security. In the coming decades, China will have become more dependent on the energy supply and agricultural goods from its northern neighbor, while the Russian economy in the vast Siberia will be benefited by substantial FDI from China. As a result, the current discrepancy between their strong political relations and the weak economic ties would be effectively addressed, together, the pipeline could revive the prosperity of China’s north eastern provinces and Russia’s Far East region, not mention of their current close cooperation in the field of information technology and space.

Accordingly, it is fair to argue that China and Russia play a decisive role in the formation of a new energy map of the world with the launch of the “Power of Siberia” gas pipeline project which sets a prime example of how the natural gas market is becoming mobile and cross-regional. Equally in terms of the public disagreements between the United States and its European allies, China and Russia working together have moved towards more dynamic relations with European countries and in particular the member states of the European Economic Union—Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Armenia.

All in all, China and Russia’s foreign policy, based on the pursuit of mutual benefits, made the materialization of the power of Siberia energy deal feasible. The operationalization of the pipeline is proof that the world doesn’t just function based on a single system. Americans may believe that theirs functions well, but that doesn’t disqualify other systems from being equally functional or even superior in making and executing long-term goals that benefit the public. The pipeline has elevated the bilateral relationship to a new level and will benefit future generations. With this new linkage, Sino-Russian common interests would be more intertwined, making mutual benefits even more important going forward. This is what President Xi has reiterated as our true relationship will be of utmost importance in China’s foreign policy.

Continue Reading

Energy

Clash of titans: Is OPEC+ deal nearing its end?

Published

on

Only a few days is left before the unveiling of a big decision which will mostly determine the future of oil market in the upcoming year.

Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies including Russia (known as OPEC+) are going to gather in Vienna during December 5-6 for the 177th Meeting of the OPEC Conference and the 7th OPEC and non-OPEC Ministerial Meeting, to discuss the oil market and reach a decision regarding the next step for the OPEC+ cuts deal.

Many experts and analysts expect OPEC+ to decide on extending the current pact rather than deepening the cuts, however contrasting signals from the groups’ two major policy-makers indicate that the situation doesn’t seem to be unwinding toward such a decision.

Saudi Arabia and Aramco IPO

After two years of postponing and speculation, Saudi Arabia has finally announced that the kingdom is going to officially offer 1.5 percent of its oil-giant’s stakes on December 5, allowing institutional investors to submit their initial offers. Interestingly, Aramco’s initial public offering (IPO) is concurrent with the 177th gathering of OPEC.

For years, the Saudis have been announcing that they will sell about five percent of Aramco’s stock in foreign and domestic stock exchanges; and since they valued the company at $2 trillion, it was estimated that Saudi Arabia would make $100 billion on its initial offering, and will use the proceeds to build on the foundations of the crown prince’s 2030 vision for an oil-free economy. 

However, in spite of the many years of advertising and effort, Aramco’s IPO didn’t receive the attention and praise that the kingdom expected. Therefore, they reduced the IPO to 1.5 percent and it seems that they have even abandoned their dreams of attracting large-cap funds from foreign exchanges, at least for the time being. 

So, Aramco’s initial offering is going to be only in their domestic stock exchange, and the IPO is likely to only generate over $25 billion in revenue for Saudi Arabia.

So far, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates are the only foreign countries that are ready to participate in Aramco’s IPO, and there are no major investors from Europe or the United States.

With all that said, and considering the fact that after holding the IPO Saudis would not need high oil prices in the short-run, it seems that the kingdom is no longer eager for shouldering other OPEC+ members’ delinquencies regarding the oil production cuts.

Preparing for the IPO in the past year, Saudi Arabia turned a blind eye to the OPEC+ group members’ violations from the agreed production levels by major producers like Russia and Iraq and shouldered the burden by cutting its own output more than agreed to offset the over-production.

However, new signals are emerging which indicate that the kingdom is no longer willing to undermine its production for the sake of higher oil prices.

Last week, Bloomberg reported that Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman, Saudi’s new oil minister who replaced Khalid Al-Falih in September, is not going to follow his predecessor’s footsteps and is expected to voice the kingdom’s intolerance regarding the violation of the cuts deal.

Russia and the OPEC+

It has been more or less three years since Russia and some other oil producers joined hands with the 14-member OPEC to balance the oversupplied oil market and prevent the oil prices from further fall which was costing their economies a great deal.

Russia, as one of the world’s top oil producers and exporters, has been consistently voicing its support for a deal reached between OPEC and non-OPEC allies for volunteer production cuts to support the oil prices, however statistics show that the country itself hasn’t been doing much in this regard.

According to Bloomberg, Russia’s shipping data for 2019 indicates that the second pillar of the OPEC+ deal has conformed to the agreed production levels only for three months, namely May, June and July and even the production cuts in those three months doesn’t seem to be voluntarily since it was during the disruption of the key Druzhba oil pipeline.

Other signatories of the deal haven’t been much helpful in this regard, Iraq, for example, was supposed to pump about 4.51 million barrels per day (bpd), but has produced on average about 4.8 million bpd. Kazakhstan accepted a 1.86-million-bpd limit, however it has produced close to 1.95 million barrels of oil and finally Nigeria agreed to a quota of 1.68 million bpd, but has regularly pumped more than 1.8 million.

These constant violations have clearly pushed the Saudis to their limit, and now with the Aramco IPO going to be no longer a motive for Saudi to offset the excess production by OPEC+ members, Russia seems to be rethinking the worth of remaining in the OPEC+ pact.

Russian officials have been recently showing some vague signals, indicating a possible abandoning of the OPEC+ deal.

Tass news agency recently quoted Russia’s oil minister as saying that his country favors postponing any decision-making regarding the new supply caps until April, which is the pact’s due.

The discrepancy between the views of OPEC+ titans has prompted some experts to speculate on the possibility of a breakup of the cuts deal; a speculation which seriously affected the oil market in the end of this month trades. 

On Friday, which was the last day of November trades, U.S. crude oil fell by nearly $3, or 5 percent, to about $55 a barrel. Brent crude also experienced a $2.8 or 4.4 percent drop and returned to the $50 range. 

Considering the oil markets current status, it seems that we are going to witness a very tense OPEC+ gathering in Vienna this week. One can only wait to see how the situation is going to unwind.

However, the most expected outcome would be that Russia and Saudi Arabia will agree to extend the pact for another few months to buy time in order to assess the market’s situation in the New Year and then decide how to proceed.

From our partner Tehran Times

Continue Reading

Energy

Potential Of Renewables In The MENA Region: The Cases Of Turkey And Jordan

Antonia Dimou

Published

on

The potential of renewables in the MENA region is met with major challenges and opportunities. The region is home to more than half of the world’s crude oil and more than a third of its natural gas reserves thus being a global producer and exporter of energy. The MENA region is also a major energy consumer, and alongside Asia it is estimated that it will continue to represent the majority of the world’s energy demand growth. Solar power can constitute a major pillar of renewable energy due to the region’s climate conditions thus playing a significant role as a cost-competitive alternative to conventional fossil fuels.

Creating the right incentives for renewable energy deployment in the MENA region can involve a spectrum of economic policies that reduce or eliminate market distortions like access to sources of finance. The removal of distortions via the reduction of energy subsidies, for instance can be a step towards the right direction that is however met with both opportunities and challenges. The provision of low energy prices in the past few decades has helped certain regional countries to achieve key developmental and social objectives, such as protection of the income of households, promotion of industrialization and inflation control.  But this policy has come at a huge cost and has led to a wide range of distortions, such as hindering economic diversification; and, low efficiency as consumers and industries have had little incentive to conserve energy.

No doubt that the increase in energy prices due to reduction of subsidies will have direct and indirect effects on the welfare of households and the profitability and competitiveness of the MENA industry. To revert negative consequences, regional governments could establish specialized funds to help industries adjust to higher costs by introducing new technologies and upgrading equipment. Also designing compensation schemes for households would be essential to avoid backlash from consumers. For instance, increases in energy prices in Jordan were accompanied with direct cash handouts to households with low income.

The main question that arises is the following: Are renewables a threat to natural gas or the other way around?

Energy markets that are competitive and resilient illustrate how natural gas and renewables are not mutually exclusive, but rather are complementary. Natural gas and renewables can gradually replace coal in power generation, thus lowering carbon dioxide emissions. In the regional setting, Turkey and Jordan present success stories in that they combine natural gas and renewables for power generation.

Jordan particularly looks for the provision of affordable and sustainable electricity from renewables and natural gas. The kingdom is on pace to exceed 20 percent of generated electricity from renewables by 2020. Jordan managed to rank first in the MENA region in renewable energy growth because there are stable political and regulatory frameworks that support investments for renewables along with clear financial schemes such as tax exemptions. However, the Energy and Minerals Regulatory Commission should ensure that the Jordanian National Electric Power Company (NEPCO) and other distribution companies receive adequate incentives to connect renewables to the grid.

The Zaatari refugee camp can be cited as the world’s largest solar power production project, which produces 23 gigawatt hours/year and supplies electricity 14 hours/day to at least eighty thousand Syrians, twenty-two schools and two hospitals. The Zaatari camp has set a precedent when it comes to executing sustainable renewable energy projects. At the same time, the kingdom has pursued three viable options of gas supply for electricity generation: (1) reliable Israeli gas imports that could strengthen Jordan’s energy security; (2) the supply of gas from the Risha field in northeast Jordan that currently covers two percent of domestic needs, and (3) Qatari gas imports via the existing LNG terminal at the port of Aqaba.

Coming to Turkey, to ensure resource diversity, Turkey generates 24 percent of its electricity from renewables, which is equal to the world average of electricity production from renewables. Turkey’s success in renewables is attributed on the one hand to the abandonment of the feed-in-tariff model that entailed high costs and on the other hand to the adoption of the Renewable Energy Resources Area Project-YEKA model that is applied to wind and solar power. The YEKA model ensures a minimum domestication rate of 65 percent and a 15-year purchasing guarantee for contractors, including plant construction and production of wind turbines. According to Turkey’s New Economic Program, the growth rate of the Turkish economy will increase rapidly from 2021 and onwards and consequently the demand for energy will increase.

The combined power generation from natural gas and renewables is a priority for Turkey that covers 60 percent of its primary energy needs from natural gas, while electricity from renewables is destined for domestic consumption. It is estimated that by 2035, Turkey will consume 55 bcm of gas, and for this reason, Ankara seeks to safeguard import capacity. This shows that a strong interest in East Mediterranean gas will likely remain regional as opposed to reaching international markets.

Practically, for the MENA region to realize its renewable potential, countries should provide stable regulatory frameworks and clear financial schemes like tax exemptions for renewable energy equipment, as well as establish Centers of Excellence for the sharing of know-how and support of investment in renewable power generation.

European and international banking and financial institutions, such as the World Bank and U.S. development agencies, such as the USAID, should be urged to provide loans or grants to foster the region’s turn to renewable energy.

When it comes to Turkey, investments for transmission and distribution grids should be accelerated, as this infrastructure is crucial if Ankara is to exploit its renewable potential. Additionally, the financing of small-scale projects should be prioritized, as opposed to large-scale energy projects, due to fluctuating currency rates that discourage foreign capital flows. Regarding Jordan, the Kingdom should continue to diversify its energy mix by combining power generation from natural gas and renewables to increase energy independence and meet high domestic demand.

It can be safely concluded that the MENA region can lead the global efforts in support of the energy transformation with the increased use of renewables benefiting economies and the livelihood of present and future generations.

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending